Extreme gun control positions

OK Jeff

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
431
320
NA
✟63,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Really? I would beg to differ. That amendments can reinstate rights that wetre lost does not negate the fact that they can indeed restrict rights.
My original post on the topic was referring to a quote that the constitution “should” eventually be used to suspend rights. Indeed it can. But it should never.
 
Upvote 0

OK Jeff

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
431
320
NA
✟63,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure you can. Your philosophy is problematic. I don't agree with sacrificing liberty in most cases but it can be done, and in some cases doing so can increase one's security.
I should’ve said “should not” as it’s foolish
 
Upvote 0

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Difference is driving/owning a car isn’t a constitutionally guaranteed right.
The ridiculous truth regarding 2nd amendment arguments / proponents is the following:

They maintain that the Constitution is so important, so sacred that you simply cannot infringe on it in any way... and they argue this very vehemently yet there is a huge problem with this...

ALL OF OUR RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED UPON IN SOME WAY!!!!

This position that the 2nd amendment is so sacred it cannot be infringed upon never ever applies to any of the other amendments...

My freedom of free speech is routinely limited and even infringed upon by the Government. Don't believe me? Go to a police station and yell, "F you pigs I hope you all die" and see what happens to you.

I could go on listing examples amendment by amendment but I will stop there. Point is simple, this notion that you simply can't touch an amendment in any way, shape, or form is pure fallacy... but for some reason 2nd amendment proponents get away with using this logical fallacy as a shield.

And I say this as a gun owner.

Amendments are not untouchable, no amendment is absolute, so stop treating the 2nd amendment as if any infringement is tantamount to ripping the entire Constitution to shreds...

/[end rant]
 
Upvote 0

OK Jeff

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
431
320
NA
✟63,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The ridiculous truth regarding 2nd amendment arguments / proponents is the following:

They maintain that the Constitution is so important, so sacred that you simply cannot infringe on it in any way... and they argue this very vehemently yet there is a huge problem with this...

ALL OF OUR RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED UPON IN SOME WAY!!!!

This position that the 2nd amendment is so sacred it cannot be infringed upon never ever applies to any of the other amendments...

My freedom of free speech is routinely limited and even infringed upon by the Government. Don't believe me? Go to a police station and yell, "F you pigs I hope you all die" and see what happens to you.

I could go on listing examples amendment by amendment but I will stop there. Point is simple, this notion that you simply can't touch an amendment in any way, shape, or form is pure fallacy... but for some reason 2nd amendment proponents get away with using this logical fallacy as a shield.

And I say this as a gun owner.

Amendments are not untouchable, no amendment is absolute, so stop treating the 2nd amendment as if any infringement is tantamount to ripping the entire Constitution to shreds...

/[end rant]
And there are those who yell at the top of their lungs for the first amendment as well. I’m often one. It has to be protected wholeheartedly to slow the rate of deterioration. We will eventually lose them all.
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,538
658
Ohio
✟28,633.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
And there you nailed it. The restriction should be around the problem persons. Not the guns. The gun is a tool, neither good nor bad. Gun violence is a human problem
I never claimed it wasn't. Is it safe then to assume that you oppose all laws regulating pharmaceuticals or illicit drugs such as Cocaine or Methamphetamine? Those are also human problems.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,242
12,995
Seattle
✟895,274.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I don’t understand how you think this does anything but prove my point.
Very well ,let me spell it out for you.

OK Jeff said:
That’s from intruders, criminals, and our own government.

Only one of those things is something you use a militia to protect you from. The second amendment in no way protects your right to self defense. That is simply a side effect of it's stated purpose.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The ridiculous truth regarding 2nd amendment arguments / proponents is the following:

They maintain that the Constitution is so important, so sacred that you simply cannot infringe on it in any way... and they argue this very vehemently yet there is a huge problem with this...

ALL OF OUR RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED UPON IN SOME WAY!!!!

This position that the 2nd amendment is so sacred it cannot be infringed upon never ever applies to any of the other amendments...

My freedom of free speech is routinely limited and even infringed upon by the Government. Don't believe me? Go to a police station and yell, "F you pigs I hope you all die" and see what happens to you.

I could go on listing examples amendment by amendment but I will stop there. Point is simple, this notion that you simply can't touch an amendment in any way, shape, or form is pure fallacy... but for some reason 2nd amendment proponents get away with using this logical fallacy as a shield.

And I say this as a gun owner.

Amendments are not untouchable, no amendment is absolute, so stop treating the 2nd amendment as if any infringement is tantamount to ripping the entire Constitution to shreds...

/[end rant]
The Second Amendment literally has "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in it, so an argument for infringement in spite of it is not a good one. Your example of yelling in the police station is not a good one, since police have the right to defend themselves and other officers, and can reasonably suspect that such a stunt would be a prelude to an assault. Hence, they would subdue you in short order.
 
Upvote 0

OK Jeff

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
431
320
NA
✟63,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I never claimed it wasn't. Is it safe then to assume that you oppose all laws regulating pharmaceuticals or illicit drugs such as Cocaine or Methamphetamine? Those are also human problems.
As a principle, yes I oppose such restrictions. But I can’t quite bring myself to say “legalize them”. Not yet anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Only one of those things is something you use a militia to protect you from. The second amendment in no way protects your right to self defense. That is simply a side effect of it's stated purpose.
For there to be a right for militias to exist, there is an implicit right to self-defense.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LostMarbels
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Difference is driving/owning a car isn’t a constitutionally guaranteed right.

But like cars, do you think it is a good idea for people who own firearms to be properly trained in how to use them?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OK Jeff

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
431
320
NA
✟63,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Very well ,let me spell it out for you.



Only one of those things is something you use a militia to protect you from. The second amendment in no way protects your right to self defense. That is simply a side effect of it's stated purpose.
Protecting yourself from foreign or domestic threats is precisely the purpose. A criminal isn’t such a far reach.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,242
12,995
Seattle
✟895,274.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
My original post on the topic was referring to a quote that the constitution “should” eventually be used to suspend rights. Indeed it can. But it should never.

Ah, I see what you were trying to convey. Apologies for my lack of understanding.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
And there are those who yell at the top of their lungs for the first amendment as well. I’m often one. It has to be protected wholeheartedly to slow the rate of deterioration. We will eventually lose them all.

Not in the same way that 2nd amendment proponents yell about the 2nd amendment.

1st amendment proponents don't take to the streets to protect your right to yell fire in a crowded theater?
1st amendment proponents don't threaten to oust politicians for making pedophilia inappropriate content illegal do they?
1st amendment proponents don't campaign on a platform that if you make snuff films illegal then it is a slippery slope to making all films illegal do they?

So it is not in the same league, not even close. 2nd amendment proponents are pathological in their "don't touch my amendment" stance as compared to 1st amendment proponents.

When you propose a "reasonable" infringement on any other amendment it is met with rational discourse...
When you propose a "reasonable" infringement on the 2nd amendment, 2nd amendment proponents foam at the mouth in their defense using every single logical fallacy in the book, especially the slippery slope fallacy...

if we applied the same logic to all of our other laws and amendments... then we'd have no laws, rules, or regulations... yet for some reason, we let 2nd amendment proponents use these ridiculous arguments and tactics...

It is disingenuous to the point of being absolutely disgusting...
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,538
658
Ohio
✟28,633.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
It was originally restricted to those who had vested interest. Namely possessed actual property.
All citizens have a vested interest in how their government is run they are vested due to being not only taxpayers but also because they are subject to the government to which they are subject. All adult citizens should, as they do now, have the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Please provide a cogent argument as to why this is not true.
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,538
658
Ohio
✟28,633.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
If they can't buy a gun and ammunition as easily as we can, and freely transport it to an open rifle range whenever they want like we can, no, they're not as free as we are.
Of course one must also consider what they can do that we can't. Simply having one freedom that they do not enjoy doesn't necessarily make us freer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Of course one must also consider what they can do that we can't. Simply having one freedom that they do not enjoy doesn't necessarily make us freer.
Smoking weed (which I do not personally advocate) comes to mind, but the states are already working on that.
 
Upvote 0