The case against guns

[Jason]

You didn't answer the question.

[Collector1337]

You didn't answer the question.

Neither did you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Voting for gun control and against the 2nd Amendment is treason.

First of all, no it isn't.

Second of all, do you see the constitution as an ossified holy relic or a 'living' constitution that may be changed (or ammended) to keep it relevant to the issues of the times?

Yes, it is.

"Holy?" WTF?

So, what about when the government wants to restrict your 1st Amendment rights to, "keep it relevant to the issues of the times?"

Well, here Fakuname is correct.

Voting for gun control is not "treason" -- (a) not all gun control is violative of the Second Amendment - so voting for gun control that is consistent with the Second Amendment is not treason, and (b) voting is voting -- it's not treason. Voting to make abortion mandatory or to shut down all the news papers is not "treason".

What if the government wants to restrict 1st Amendment rights? Well, violating the First Amendment would be unconstitutional, but not all unconstitutional acts are "treason." Just like when a cop does an unreasonable search or seizure, it may cause evidence not to be admitted or a conviction to be overturned, but the cop isn't brought up on treason charges.

Treason is punishable by death. You think that if a cop is found to have failed to get a warrant when one was required that he should be executed? You think if a city is found to have unconstitutionally taken property in eminent domain that that the city council and the mayor should be hanged? Do you think that if a judge imposes an excessive bail, he's committed treason and should be executed?

Dude - think it through.

[Collector1337]

Name one amendment, just one, that includes, "Shall not be infringed" in it's wording.

But yes, unconstitutional and treason are indeed different.

[Coito ergo sum]

Name one amendment, just one, that includes, "Shall not be infringed" in it's wording.

But yes, unconstitutional and treason are indeed different.

Shall not be infringed does not mean "shall not be regulated in any way shape or form." The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. As long as the people still retain the right to keep and bear arms, regulating them wouldn't be a problem. I mean, we don't allow uranium tipped bullets and bullets laced with cyanide to be sold on the open market. Limiting the number of bullets in a magazine to anything under 100 would seem to still afford the right to keep and bear arms. Registration or licensing doesn't "infringe" anything does it?

Most gun owners say that felons and the psychologically unfit, and small children, are legitimately barred from owning guns -- if "shall not be infringed" means that nothing at all can be regulated, then how can there be laws against felons with guns or the loonies with guns?

But, even if a lawmaker "votes" yes on a gun control bill, and even if it is later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean the legislator has committed treason. That was, as I read it, what you claimed - that voting for gun control was treason. Plainly, it isn't.

[Collector1337]

They had criminals and crazy people when it was written. Then why didn't they say anything about that?

They also had heavy artillery cannons. It doesn't say, "but no cannons."

[Rum]

They had criminals and crazy people when it was written. Then why didn't they say anything about that?

They also had heavy artillery cannons. It doesn't say, "but no cannons."

Go buy a canon. Fire it in your house when it is burgled.

[Collector1337]

They had criminals and crazy people when it was written. Then why didn't they say anything about that?

They also had heavy artillery cannons. It doesn't say, "but no cannons."

Go buy a canon. Fire it in your house when it is burgled.

Obviously, that's not what artillery is for, is it?

[Coito ergo sum]

They had criminals and crazy people when it was written. Then why didn't they say anything about that?

They also had heavy artillery cannons. It doesn't say, "but no cannons."

The also had regulations concerning where and when firearms could be carried back then too. Many towns barred the bearing of arms within their city limits.

It also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear ANY ARM OF ANY KIND ANYWHERE ANYTIME shall not be infringed," does it? Just like freedom of speech does not include conspiracies to commit murder and defamation of character or libel/slander, there are outer limits.

Do you support the right of felons and psychotics to bear arms?

[Rum]

They had criminals and crazy people when it was written. Then why didn't they say anything about that?

They also had heavy artillery cannons. It doesn't say, "but no cannons."

Go buy a canon. Fire it in your house when it is burgled.

Obviously, that's not what artillery is for, is it?

Obviously that isn't what assault weapons, automatic pistols, high velocity weapons of various kinds, large magazines..etc..are meant for. Walked into that one.

[Collector1337]

They had criminals and crazy people when it was written. Then why didn't they say anything about that?

They also had heavy artillery cannons. It doesn't say, "but no cannons."

The also had regulations concerning where and when firearms could be carried back then too. Many towns barred the bearing of arms within their city limits.

It also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear ANY ARM OF ANY KIND ANYWHERE ANYTIME shall not be infringed," does it? Just like freedom of speech does not include conspiracies to commit murder and defamation of character or libel/slander, there are outer limits.

Do you support the right of felons and psychotics to bear arms?

No, but there are a lot of felonies in which no victim is created and they are no threat to society. They should be able to regain their right to defend themselves.

[Collector1337]

They had criminals and crazy people when it was written. Then why didn't they say anything about that?

They also had heavy artillery cannons. It doesn't say, "but no cannons."

Go buy a canon. Fire it in your house when it is burgled.

Obviously, that's not what artillery is for, is it?

Obviously that isn't what assault weapons, automatic pistols, high velocity weapons of various kinds, large magazines..etc..are meant for. Walked into that one.

"Automatic pistols?" Like what? Who has those?

What's a "high velocity weapon of various kinds?"

What's an "assault weapon?"

An AR-15 though makes a great rifle for home defense. They are easier for women to shoot and handle since they are more ergonomic, have less recoil, and are lightweight. When using proper home defense rounds, they have LESS penetration than a pistol or a shotgun would, therefore making it much safer to discharge indoors so you don't have to worry about hitting someone you do not intend to. Standard capacity magazines make it less likely you will need to reload if facing multiple attackers, especially when you take the number of misses into consideration.

Clearly, you are very ignorant of anything firearm related. I'll wait for your subjective definitions of the questions I asked.

[Rum]

'Home defences'.

America at its best.

[Collector1337]

'Home defences'.

America at its best.

I'm sure laughing is what you'll be doing when a crew of home invaders are breaking in to your house.

If you're so proud, then you should put a sign in your front yard that says, "This house contains no guns."

[Rum]

'Home defences'.

America at its best.

I'm sure laughing is what you'll be doing when a crew of home invaders are breaking in to your house.

If you're so proud, then you should put a sign in your front yard that says, "This house contains no guns."

How much would you like to best that won't ever happen here in more or less gun free England? I bet you your gun stash versus my social arrangements whereby we hardly ever..well actually never.. see, let alone hear gunfire or have to fear the nightmare you must live with most of the time.

INVADERS! ARGGGHHH!