smart move. remove a major GOP rallying point. leave them ranting on the wrong side of gay marriage and the economy.

FlashHarry: smart move. Read the Constitution


FTFY

Cog:

FTFY

I just read the whole Constitution front to back and didn't see anything about assault weapons.

/glad he's focusing on other, more important stuff

"FlashHarry: smart move. Read the Constitution


FTFY""

Just curious... would that mean someone of financial means could, in fact, purchase medium-ranged missiles equipped with nuclear warheads as personal arms?

After all, the 2nd Amendment does not say that person couldn't.

Action Replay Nick: I just read the whole Constitution front to back and didn't see anything about assault weapons.

Of course not, our forefathers never could have imagined "assault weapons", that's why they aren't protected by the constitution.

/I think that's how the argument goes

So in other words he's breaking his campaign promise to take away everyone's guns. Cue the outrage!

Dupa: Of course not, our forefathers never could have imagined "assault weapons", that's why they aren't protected by the constitution.

/I think that's how the argument goes

Ordinary citizens should be limited to muzzle-loading smoothbore flintlocks.

40yoVirgin

Just curious... would that mean someone of financial means could, in fact, purchase medium-ranged missiles equipped with nuclear warheads as personal arms?

After all, the 2nd Amendment does not say that person couldn't.


Up until 1968 my family owned a 105mm howitzer and a Browning .50 caliber machine gun. Needless to say, people were a lot more polite back then.

Cog: FlashHarry: smart move. Read the Constitution


FTFY

Where does the constitution protect assault weapons?

40yoVirgin: would that mean someone of financial means could, in fact, purchase medium-ranged missiles equipped with nuclear warheads as personal arms?

Yes.

eqtworld: bought a shiatload of high capacity magazines to sell after the ban.

What caliber?

40yoVirgin: "FlashHarry: smart move. Read the Constitution


FTFY""

Just curious... would that mean someone of financial means could, in fact, purchase medium-ranged missiles equipped with nuclear warheads as personal arms?

After all, the 2nd Amendment does not say that person couldn't.

Yeah, it says nothing about a specific type of arms. And I've gotten into this line of "argument" before with the most extreme out there saying that, indeed, the Constitution does grant you the right to have personal nuclear arms. How long would our civilization/species last once wing-nuts have their own suitcase nukes?

US Constitution:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I still think the first half of the amendment was included for a reason, but modern gun advocates completely and totally ignore it. They'll scream "Second Amendment" all day long, but almost never quote the thing as it includes that awkward first half which makes the amendment not as cut and dry as they would like you to convince you it is.

WorldCitizen: I still think the first half of the amendment was included for a reason,

As was the second half.

It may be possible for the article to use more slanted language("gaping loophole" "diluting gun control" and "ignored pleas" for one side, "She has reason" and "sensible refrain" for the other), but it was pretty bad.

So Obama condones assault?

/obvious troll is obvious

eqtworld: mainly 7.62 30 round mags and GLOCK 9mm high cap pistol mags

Got any for a 1911?

Dancin_In_Anson: WorldCitizen: I still think the first half of the amendment was included for a reason,

As was the second half.

But the second half can be read to have a very different meaning as finishing the one sentence about militias when not conveniently "leaving out" that part. You interpret it one way. I interpret it another. It is not cut and dry. If the Founders were thinking exactly like you do, why does not the amendment say:

Amendment II

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And I'm sorry, but the second any country on this planet starts allowing individuals to decide who lives and who dies on the scale of millions is the time that I advocate that the government of that country be toppled by whatever means the world has to do so. There are way too many unstable individuals out there. Imagine the threat to the US if another nation did that? How many anti-American wing-nuts are there in the world who would be glad to give their lives to take out an American city or two? And individual Americans with nukes would be a threat to their own citizens and the rest of the world. How long would it be before some right wing zealot decided to take out the "queer" San Francisco with a nuke? Washington, D.C. would be a ghost town as you just know it's a wet dream of many a wing-nut to take out D.C. And you could have racist, isolationist Americans taking out any number of world cities for any number of reasons.

Luckily, I think the number of people on this planet who are irrational enough to advocate the individual right to bear nukes is so small that any attempt to make that reality would be laughed out of any legislative body.

And just to clarify, this part of my post WorldCitizen: And I'm sorry, but the second any country on this planet starts allowing individuals to decide who lives and who dies on the scale of millions...

Is in response to this:

Dancin_In_Anson: 40yoVirgin: would that mean someone of financial means could, in fact, purchase medium-ranged missiles equipped with nuclear warheads as personal arms?

Yes.

WorldCitizen: Dancin_In_Anson: WorldCitizen: I still think the first half of the amendment was included for a reason,

As was the second half.

But the second half can be read to have a very different meaning as finishing the one sentence about militias when not conveniently "leaving out" that part. You interpret it one way. I interpret it another.

We should probably keep the Supreme Court decision in Heller in mind when interpreting Constitutionality.

The great thing about the gun-nuts is watching them scream and flail over a few lines of your constitution, while standing silent when the rest of it was rewritten on a whim.

Snarfangel: We should probably keep the Supreme Court decision in Heller in mind when interpreting Constitutionality.

Don't you get it? The Supremes aren't allowed to interpret the text. Laymen trying to wrangle themselves AK47s for 'personal defence' are the only people qualified.

Snarfangel: WorldCitizen: Dancin_In_Anson: WorldCitizen: I still think the first half of the amendment was included for a reason,

As was the second half.

But the second half can be read to have a very different meaning as finishing the one sentence about militias when not conveniently "leaving out" that part. You interpret it one way. I interpret it another.

We should probably keep the Supreme Court decision in Heller in mind when interpreting Constitutionality.

I'm aware that the Supreme Court recently reversed their previous interpretation of the amendment to one that meets the ideology of the current majority of the Supreme Court justices. That does not mean that the amendment is cut and dry. In fact, since there have now been two conflicting interpretations of the amendment by SCOTUS over the years only highlights my point that the wording of the amendment makes its intent anything but cut and dry.

WorldCitizen: It is not cut and dry

One might think otherwise:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

Dancin_In_Anson: WorldCitizen: It is not cut and dry

One might think otherwise:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

If your team loses the election, obviously it's time to level the capitol with a nuke. mirite?

eqtworld: bought a shiatload of high capacity magazines to sell after the ban.

/fark me

They're doing this just to screw over speculators...and of course it will take a lot of weapons to arm the Red Guard militias.

Bored Horde: If your team loses the election, obviously it's time to level the capitol with a nuke. mirite?

Um, no.

Let's look at this text then, DIA. Since it it is cut and dry,

Bored Horde: Dancin_In_Anson: WorldCitizen: It is not cut and dry

One might think otherwise:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,

What exactly does this mean? They're advocating armed rebellion if they're betrayed. In what respect, Charlie?

Snarfangel: We should probably keep the Supreme Court decision in Heller in mind when interpreting Constitutionality.

According to Heller, the government would be allowed to pass a law banning the design, manufacture, and sale of any new kind of gun. I'm not sure its really a great precedent.

Amendment II

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If you take the word "and" out, it changes into a whole other thing.

shanrick: If you take the word "and" out, it changes into a whole other thing.



Will pimp slap you.

WorldCitizen: I'm aware that the Supreme Court recently reversed their previous interpretation of the amendment to one that meets the ideology of the current majority of the Supreme Court justices. That does not mean that the amendment is cut and dry. In fact, since there have now been two conflicting interpretations of the amendment by SCOTUS over the years only highlights my point that the wording of the amendment makes its intent anything but cut and dry.

We could have another Constitutional Convention, and make things cut and dry.

Of course, we'd end up with a Bill of Rights the size of a phone book. On the plus side, the years of political wrangling would be entertaining.

/I'd push to get rid of plurality voting. A mixed Condorcet/Proxy unicameral legislature with staggered four-year, non-consecutive terms would be pretty good.

Bored Horde: They're advocating armed rebellion if they're betrayed. In what respect, Charlie?

In respect to the will of the people. If they feel betrayed it is not only their right, but their duty to take arms.

eqtworld: The 1911 is a single stack .45, you can fit 17 9mm rounds in a standard GLOCK, but for a 1911 the mag would stick out the bottom 5 inches ;)

They make 10 round mags for the 1911.

Dancin_In_Anson: In respect to the will of the people. If they feel betrayed it is not only their right, but their duty to take arms.

Like I said, if your team loses the election, nuke the capitol.

Dancin_In_Anson: In respect to the will of the people. If they feel betrayed it is not only their right, but their duty to take arms.

What if you feel betrayed by the rest of the constituency likes their representatives?

DamnYankees: Dancin_In_Anson: In respect to the will of the people. If they feel betrayed it is not only their right, but their duty to take arms.

What if you feel betrayed by the rest of the constituency likes their representatives?

I think that's why we have these things scheduled regularly...oh, what are they called....oh yeah, elections.

Bored Horde: Like I said, if your team loses the election, nuke the capitol.

If that's what floats your boat.

DamnYankees: What if you feel betrayed by the rest of the constituency likes their representatives?

I would say that happens a lot.

WorldCitizen: I think that's why we have these things scheduled regularly...oh, what are they called....oh yeah, elections.

Yeah, and?

eqtworld: They make everything for the 1911

I can't imagine how heavy that would be.

How wants to bet that the Republican masses still use this as a talking point? Facts never got in the way of a good rallying cry before.

Dancin_In_Anson: I would say that happens a lot.

So do you have a duty to take up arms if you feel betrayed by your representatives, even if the rest of your constituency likes them?

Cog: FlashHarry: smart move. Read the Constitution


FTFY

Sure, if you want to interpret it any way you want.

I think we should have unabridged access to own tanks and nuclear weapons. The 2nd amendment clearly supports this, and it prevents government tyranny. What is your counter-argument? Where is the magical line drawn with weapons we get to own?

/gun control doesn't work
//unrestricted guns do not work either
///we have a violence problem we need to fix, not a gun problem

DamnYankees: So do you have a duty to take up arms if you feel betrayed by your representatives, even if the rest of your constituency likes them?

Not particularly as I have not felt betrayed to the extent of feeling threatened by the government. If the government attempted to do something like disarm the population, I would think that we would be getting into some pretty touchy ground.

How is the prohibition on shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre more of an abridgment of the First Amendment than limitations on assault weapons and nuclear bombs is of the Second?

Dancin_In_Anson: Not particularly as I have not felt betrayed to the extent of feeling threatened by the government. If the government attempted to do something like disarm the population, I would think that we would be getting into some pretty touchy ground.

But what if you felt betrayed and no one else did? Would you still go on a one-man revolution?

DamnYankees: But what if you felt betrayed and no one else did? Would you still go on a one-man revolution?

Doubtful that something would happen where I would be the only one feeling that betrayed.

Dancin_In_Anson: Doubtful that something would happen where I would be the only one feeling that betrayed.

So for you, you need other people to also feel the same way in order for you to agree with yourself?

Remove it? It was never there to begin with. The Democrats conceded the firearms debate years ago. Not that this will stop the teabagging, see also Fairness Doctrine.

DamnYankees: So for you, you need other people to also feel the same way in order for you to agree with yourself?

Read it again:

DamnYankees: But what if you felt betrayed and no one else did?

Dancin_In_Anson: Doubtful that something would happen where I would be the only one feeling that betrayed.

Or do I need to type that slower for you?

Hopefully this will slow the run on ammunition. Prices are out of control, and availability of certain calibers has been sketchy. It's really annoying.

I've been saying all along that nothing was going to happen because it would be political suicide to start farking around with stupid gun control measures. However, if the Republicans don't shed the crazies and continue to lose seats, that may change sometime in Obama's second term.

Dancin_In_Anson: Or do I need to type that slower for you?

Apparently you do. What if everyone around you was convinced that banning guns was a good idea. You were the only one who was against it. Would you then allow it to happen? Or would you arm yourself and revolt?

Can't take away their assault weapons because what else will they fire into the air during conservative weddings?

DamnYankees: What if everyone around you was convinced that banning guns was a good idea.

Try coming up with something based in reality. You know to make your point more...realistic.