Gun Control

[Junior]

 

http://www.cato.org/...econd-amendment

 

“Like most rights,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” The court offered no opinion, however, on exactly where that right ends, and reasonable regulation begins.

So how would you make that case?

 

I just did.

Then you failed miserably.

 

You said your case was that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms. You offered a reference to some ambiguous line that the right was not unlimited that made no mention of the founder's intent, let alone if the line should be at handguns, automatic weapons, grenades, missiles or thermonuclear weapons.

 

A bit of miscommunication, I thought you said "make your case" to the line that "My stance is (and the Supreme Court would agree) that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for the citizen to own guns. Not all guns. Not any guns. But some guns. The type of guns can be restricted by elected officials."

 

I have no intention on "making a case" for the founders not intending for people to own modern firearms, that was a hypothetical. No one can know what the founders' intent was. Though I think krill's post does a decent job of making that argument:

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1193384

[rawhide]

http://imgur.com/LH1W0

[StPaulHusker]

http://imgur.com/LH1W0

 

That should shut that big mouth up

[Mavric]

And you don't think that the NRA wants guns everywhere?

 

(Probably a little hyperbolic . . . I'd lean more towards the NRA wants guns allowed nearly everywhere.)

 

If you would like to make the assertion that the NRA is taking that route and back it up, please do so.

I didn't make that assertion. If you'd like to continue attempting to assign that position to me, please do so . . . but don't be surprised when I roll my eyes at your demands for "answers!"

 

So you're leaning that way but you're not asserting it, is that your right? Seems like a pretty convenient way to make an argument but not have to defend a position.

[Mavric]

A bit of miscommunication, I thought you said "make your case" to the line that "My stance is (and the Supreme Court would agree) that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for the citizen to own guns. Not all guns. Not any guns. But some guns. The type of guns can be restricted by elected officials."

 

I have no intention on "making a case" for the founders not intending for people to own modern firearms, that was a hypothetical. No one can know what the founders' intent was. Though I think krill's post does a decent job of making that argument:

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1193384

So you claim to be able to make a case but you're not going to. Sounds like a strong position.

[Junior]

A bit of miscommunication, I thought you said "make your case" to the line that "My stance is (and the Supreme Court would agree) that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for the citizen to own guns. Not all guns. Not any guns. But some guns. The type of guns can be restricted by elected officials."

 

I have no intention on "making a case" for the founders not intending for people to own modern firearms, that was a hypothetical. No one can know what the founders' intent was. Though I think krill's post does a decent job of making that argument:

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1193384

So you claim to be able to make a case but you're not going to. Sounds like a strong position.

 

I've made the case to support my position, and it's a strong one, backed by legal opinion. Do you have legal opinion to back up yours?

 

If I were to make a case that the founders never intended for modern firearms, well that's pretty simple. krill did it above in 4 pictures. The founders, who knew of muskets, could not have imagined the modern killing machines that are today's guns. Therefore, the founders intended for us to have muskets. And that's a stronger case than your definition of arms pertaining only to firearms.

[carlfense]

So you're leaning that way but you're not asserting it, is that your right?

What?

 

Seems like a pretty convenient way to make an argument but not have to defend a position.

Still trying, huh? I can direct you to my position (again) if you need the assistance.

[Mavric]

So you're leaning that way but you're not asserting it, is that your right?

What?

 

Seems like a pretty convenient way to make an argument but not have to defend a position.

Still trying, huh? I can direct you to my position (again) if you need the assistance.

The first post of yours I quoted above said "I'd lean more towards" then you said you didn't make that assertion. I'm just trying to figure out what your stated position is and if you have anything to back it up or that's just your guess.

[Mavric]

A bit of miscommunication, I thought you said "make your case" to the line that "My stance is (and the Supreme Court would agree) that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for the citizen to own guns. Not all guns. Not any guns. But some guns. The type of guns can be restricted by elected officials."

 

I have no intention on "making a case" for the founders not intending for people to own modern firearms, that was a hypothetical. No one can know what the founders' intent was. Though I think krill's post does a decent job of making that argument:

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1193384

So you claim to be able to make a case but you're not going to. Sounds like a strong position.

 

I've made the case to support my position, and it's a strong one, backed by legal opinion. Do you have legal opinion to back up yours?

 

If I were to make a case that the founders never intended for modern firearms, well that's pretty simple. krill did it above in 4 pictures. The founders, who knew of muskets, could not have imagined the modern killing machines that are today's guns. Therefore, the founders intended for us to have muskets. And that's a stronger case than your definition of arms pertaining only to firearms.

But you haven't made any case about what the founder's intent was. You can claim that they would have worded something differently if they had been able to know about the advancements in weapons but you have absolutely no case for that. It's all speculation on your part.

 

Since they didn't know anything about radio, telephones, TV and the internet does the first amendment not apply to those?

Does freedom of religion not apply to Mormons?

Since they didn't know about wiretapping and satellite surveillance does the 4th amendment not apply?

 

Your argument has no basis except that it's convenient for you to make it fit your belief.

[Junior]

Your argument has no basis except that it's convenient for you to make it fit your belief.

 

Funny, same with yours. And again, I'm not arguing the founders' intent, as I mentioned above, it is impossible to know. Additionally, it is silly to hold the position that the intent of the founders, from the late 1700s, is wholly relevant to the 21st century. Many of the founders also held slaves, thus their ideas are not above reproach. Moreover, this was not my position at all, as I've mentioned several times. I'm not trying to make that case and never was. Why you are focusing on this point is odd to me. You were the one implying you wanted a strict reading of the 2nd Amendment, then trying to say that "arms" refers only to "firearms", with no support for that position. Perhaps you can focus on that, or on my actual position, that the government can and should impose regulations on what arms are allowed for sale and purchase.

[Mavric]

I could make the case that the founders didn't intend for people to own modern firearms.

So how would you make that case?

I just did.

I have no intention on "making a case" for the founders not intending for people to own modern firearms, that was a hypothetical.

I've made the case to support my position,

 

You change your story too much to have a coherent discussion.

[carlfense]

So you're leaning that way but you're not asserting it, is that your right?

What?

 

Seems like a pretty convenient way to make an argument but not have to defend a position.

Still trying, huh? I can direct you to my position (again) if you need the assistance.

The first post of yours I quoted above said "I'd lean more towards" then you said you didn't make that assertion. I'm just trying to figure out what your stated position is and if you have anything to back it up or that's just your guess.

You didn't understand what "I'd lean more towards" meant?

 

Given that information, it's a bit easier to understand your confusion.

[Mavric]

So you're leaning that way but you're not asserting it, is that your right?

What?

 

Seems like a pretty convenient way to make an argument but not have to defend a position.

Still trying, huh? I can direct you to my position (again) if you need the assistance.

The first post of yours I quoted above said "I'd lean more towards" then you said you didn't make that assertion. I'm just trying to figure out what your stated position is and if you have anything to back it up or that's just your guess.

You didn't understand what "I'd lean more towards" meant?

 

Given that information, it's a bit easier to understand your confusion.

Then why did you bold "leaning that way" and ask "What"?

[Junior]

You change your story too much to have a coherent discussion.

 

I've not changed my story at all, and you are well aware of it. You've done a good job of diverting attention away from the actual topic, though, which I assume is your point in this whole exercise.

[carlfense]

Then why did you bold "leaning that way" and ask "What"?

You might want to re-read it. It says I'm leaning in a different direction.

 

I didn't realize your mistake until now. Sorry.