No Mr. Pratt, the second amendment is not about shooting political foes.

[TLK Valentine]

By asking you to explain exactly what you're afraid of? Yeah. How liberal of me *SMH*

It would seem that making sense has a liberal bias.

 

[Aldebaran]

It would seem that making sense has a liberal bias.

Talking about someone as wanting to “shoot the Obama administration” isn’t my definition of making sense. Therefore, it’s hard for me to take you and your friend seriously.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I didn’t know that the person occupying the highest office in the land has to personally show up at your door in order for tyranny to take place and have any effect on you. But if you want to live by that type of simplistic thinking, I will do nothing to stop you.

Huh?

I never said that "the person occupying the highest office in the land has to personally show up at your door in order for tyranny to take place". Never. Ever. Not once.

And you know that I never said that, yes?

What next? Are you going to tell me I said, "Trees are made of alligators?" Are you going to tell me I said, "Snow is purple?"
Making up things and pretending somebody said that is absolutely pointless.

Please quit misrepresenting what people say.

How does one shoot at an administration?

By pulling the trigger.

For the record, I am willing to defend myself against anyone who is a threat to me personally.

Red herring.

That is not what this thread is about. It is about a man who said,

our guns are in our hands for people like those in our government right now that think they want to go tyrannical on us, we got something for 'em. That's what it's all about. The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about target shooting, it's about Democrats who want to take our rights.​

Because we are not in agreement. But it sounds like you're desperate for my agreement.

Sigh. Once again this is the question that you refuse--refuse!--to seriously address:

Can you give me an example of one thing you think that the Obama administration might do that is likely enough to happen that it warrants being armed ready to shoot at the Obama administration?​

You finally quoted it back and answered with this:

I’m not the one who thinks the Obama administration is going to show up at my door in the first place. You and your buddy here are the only ones talking like that.

Which I thought was an attempt to answer the question by saying, that no, you cannot think of such an example.

Now we find that this was only a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the question, and was not a serious reply.

Once more we are back to the problem that you refuse--refuse!-- to answer that question.

The problem with Pratt's words is that it leaves the door wide open to armed attacks on the government by individuals. It is the same kind of unfortunate language that I have heard elsewhere. Do people even think when they make such statements? And here we have a national leader make similar comments in public. That is wrong.

​

 

[TLK Valentine]

The problem with Pratt's words is that it leaves the door wide open to armed attacks on the government by individuals. It is the same kind of unfortunate language that I have heard elsewhere. Do people even think when they make such statements? And here we have a national leader make similar comments in public. That is wrong.

We've seen a lot more thinking from Pratt's supporter to avoid, evade, and refuse to address the statement than Pratt did when he made it.

 

[Armoured]

T

We've seen a lot more thinking from Pratt's supporter to avoid, evade, and refuse to address the statement than Pratt did when he made it.

That's the great thing about reducing political discussion to a matter of dichotomous "sides". You can say any ridiculous nonsense, but so long as your fellow tribe members see you as being one of them, they'll tie themselves in knots defending your nonsense. Valid opinions, legitimate discussion and evidence based policy don't matter to these people. Everything is viewed through the paradigm "one of us said it, it's therefore right, one of them said it, it's therefore wrong".

I guess the corollary is that, therefore, if you question anything these people say, you are one of "them" by default. Which explains the rush to call me a liberal despite being about as far right as you can get without shaving my head.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Noting that this thread is about the second amendment which is hugely supported from the "right", not so much from the "left".

 

[TLK Valentine]

Noting that this thread is about the second amendment which is hugely supported from the "right", not so much from the "left".

Nothing except the OP, that is...

 

[wing2000]

QFT

T

That's the great thing about reducing political discussion to a matter of dichotomous "sides". You can say any ridiculous nonsense, but so long as your fellow tribe members see you as being one of them, they'll tie themselves in knots defending your nonsense. Valid opinions, legitimate discussion and evidence based policy don't matter to these people. Everything is viewed through the paradigm "one of us said it, it's therefore right, one of them said it, it's therefore wrong".

I guess the corollary is that, therefore, if you question anything these people say, you are one of "them" by default. Which explains the rush to call me a liberal despite being about as far right as you can get without shaving my head.

 

[super animator]

T

That's the great thing about reducing political discussion to a matter of dichotomous "sides". You can say any ridiculous nonsense, but so long as your fellow tribe members see you as being one of them, they'll tie themselves in knots defending your nonsense. Valid opinions, legitimate discussion and evidence based policy don't matter to these people. Everything is viewed through the paradigm "one of us said it, it's therefore right, one of them said it, it's therefore wrong".

I guess the corollary is that, therefore, if you question anything these people say, you are one of "them" by default. Which explains the rush to call me a liberal despite being about as far right as you can get without shaving my head.

Well it doesn't help when they are two major political parties that have major influence in government.

 

[TLK Valentine]

For someone who claims to be a conservative, you argue more like a liberal.

He is very sensible and well-reasoned, isn't he?

 

[Aldebaran]

Noting that this thread is about the second amendment which is hugely supported from the "right", not so much from the "left".

That's the sad part. Whether a person is on the Left or Right side of the political aisle, they are both Americans and should support the constitution.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's the sad part. Whether a person is on the Left or Right side of the political aisle, they are both Americans and should support the constitution.

And they do.

 

[Aldebaran]

And they do.

Attempting to ban guns, or ammo is not supporting the second amendment. Before you ask me when it has been done, I’ll answer you now by telling you to do your own homework.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Attempting to ban guns, or ammo is not supporting the second amendment. Before you ask me when it has been done, I’ll answer you now by telling you to do your own homework.

I wasn't going to ask that -- I was going to ask whether you believe that the Second Amendment is absolute, or whether it, like all the others, is subject to interpretation and reasonable regulation.

 

[Aldebaran]

I wasn't going to ask that -- I was going to ask whether you believe that the Second Amendment is absolute, or whether it, like all the others, is subject to interpretation and reasonable regulation.

It is, but then the definition of "reasonable" gets changed.

Sometimes people say it’s not reasonable for people to be able to own handguns. They’ll say making a person wait for a week to take possession of a gun they paid for in full is reasonable. They say a gun holding more than 6 rounds would be reasonable to ban. They say a person should only be allowed to own a certain number of guns, and that it’s reasonable to not even allow the people to keep those guns in their own home.

When something is “subject to interpretation”, eventually it gets interpreted to mean something that it clearly doesn’t.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is, but then the definition of "reasonable" gets changed.

The definition of "reasonable" in all things is constantly in change... did you think the second amendment would be any different?

Sometimes people say it’s not reasonable for people to be able to own handguns.

And the courts will tell them they're wrong -- as they have in the past.

They’ll say making a person wait for a week to take possession of a gun they paid for in full is reasonable.

The idea of some sort of waiting period is reasonable -- the argument then becomes how long a period is reasonable.

It's reasonable, after all, to think that a firearm shouldn't be an impulse buy... or that someone who absolutely needs to purchase a gun now, today, no, seriously, can't wait, should probably raise a few red flags.

Furthermore, at least some of that time should reasonably be spent performing a background check... one does not reasonably give a scalpel to Jack the Ripper.

They say a gun holding more than 6 rounds would be reasonable to ban.

This one I've never understood the logic for -- if you've got a 15-round magazine, plus one in the chamber, and whatever you're shooting at is still coming at you, either your aim stinks, or your fighting the Terminator.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that such restrictions are not technically second amendment violation, since the guns are not being banned, only certain parts of them -- the magazines.

They say a person should only be allowed to own a certain number of guns, and that it’s reasonable to not even allow the people to keep those guns in their own home.

I've never seen an example of the former, although I'll take your word for it, and agree that this one is unreasonable... I'm all for registering firearms, but not for limiting them; the authorities shouldn't restrict the number of guns you own, but there's good reason for them to know you have them.

As for the latter -- I've heard of guns not allowed to be kept in the home unless certain precautions are made -- child-proof lockbox, etc... again, without knowing the specifics, I'll reserve judgement on this one.

When something is “subject to interpretation”, eventually it gets interpreted to mean something that it clearly doesn’t.

Agreed -- often by legislators... which is why we have a judiciary to reign them in. Checks and balances, and all that.

 

[Aldebaran]

And the courts will tell them they're wrong -- as they have in the past.

That hasn't been the case in Madison, WI.

The idea of some sort of waiting period is reasonable -- the argument then becomes how long a period is reasonable.

It's reasonable, after all, to think that a firearm shouldn't be an impulse buy... or that someone who absolutely needs to purchase a gun now, today, no, seriously, can't wait, should probably raise a few red flags.

If a person feels their life is in danger, then it is needed right now and can't wait. That shouldn't raise any red flags.

Furthermore, at least some of that time should reasonably be spent performing a background check... one does not reasonably give a scalpel to Jack the Ripper.

Background checks are now instant. No need for waiting.

This one I've never understood the logic for -- if you've got a 15-round magazine, plus one in the chamber, and whatever you're shooting at is still coming at you, either your aim stinks, or your fighting the Terminator.

Tell that to cops who have emptied magazines on perps quite often.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that such restrictions are not technically second amendment violation, since the guns are not being banned, only certain parts of them -- the magazines.

Magazines are needed to make the gun function.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That hasn't been the case in Madison, WI.

That's why we have appeals courts.

If a person feels their life is in danger, then it is needed right now and can't wait. That shouldn't raise any red flags.

If the danger is that imminent, a reasonable person would probably be better off going to the police before the gun shop.

That's why I support a waiting period with the following caveat -- that such a waiting period can be waived with law enforcement's approval... that's so it can be determined that you need a weapon immediately in order to protect from imminent danger, not cause it.

Background checks are now instant. No need for waiting.

Ain't that something? When I submitted my fingerprints for my teaching certification, I didn't hear back from them for a month.

Tell that to cops who have emptied magazines on perps quite often.

Cops tend to have equipment beyond what's commonly available the average citizen... I don't expect that to change.

And using family experience as a guideline, Many cops can go their entire careers without firing their weapon once... let alone the whole magazine. (And frankly, in light of current events, it might be better for them to remember their training in resolving conflicts without resorting to superior firepower)

Magazines are needed to make the gun function.

Tell that to the minutemen and their trusty muskets

But seriously, if all magazines were banned, that would be a de facto second amendment violation. But that's not the case. Only certain types of magazines are being outlawed.

 

[Aldebaran]

If the danger is that imminent, a reasonable person would probably be better off going to the police before the gun shop.

The police have no duty to protect you: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

That's why I support a waiting period with the following caveat -- that such a waiting period can be waived with law enforcement's approval... that's so it can be determined that you need a weapon immediately in order to protect from imminent danger, not cause it.

Law enforcement's approval? Do you really want to be in a waiting period to exercise your right to defend yourself because someone who has no duty to protect you arbitrarily decides that you aren't worth the hassle?

Ain't that something? When I submitted my fingerprints for my teaching certification, I didn't hear back from them for a month.

I don’t know how long ago that was, but things have improved with the computer age.

Cops tend to have equipment beyond what's commonly available the average citizen... I don't expect that to change.

You are highly misinformed. Cops and citizens are both able (where still legal) to have AR15 rifles, high capacity handguns, and tactical shotguns. That’s what the police carry, and citizens are also allowed to have where that freedom hasn’t yet been infringed. But even if you were correct, it proves my point. If cops have weapons beyond what ordinary citizens have, and even they empty a high capacity magazine on someone, then either they need better training, or stress takes over to such a high degree that even a trained cop needs more rounds to hit his target. Either way, if you need the ammo, it’s better to have it when needed. Did you here about that incident where cops fired over 130 shots at a car driven by 2 unarmed people?

And using family experience as a guideline, Many cops can go their entire careers without firing their weapon once... let alone the whole magazine. (And frankly, in light of current events, it might be better for them to remember their training in resolving conflicts without resorting to superior firepower)

Still, a cop or citizen whose life is threatened should have what he needs when he needs it.

But seriously, if all magazines were banned, that would be a de facto second amendment violation. But that's not the case. Only certain types of magazines are being outlawed.

Yeah, first they wanted to ban anything that holds over 10 rounds. Then that number started dropping because, you know, they’re being “reasonable” and arbitrary. Then certain locations started knocking that number down to 8, then 7, and even 6 rounds. They were even saying in New York that you could own a magazine that holds 8 rounds, but could only put 6 in it. So tell me, how many rounds can we be restricted to without the second amendment being violated. You’re in education, so you should know the answer to this.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The police have no duty to protect you: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Am I the only one who sees that as the bigger problem?

Law enforcement's approval? Do you really want to be in a waiting period to exercise your right to defend yourself because someone who has no duty to protect you arbitrarily decides that you aren't worth the hassle?

Again, I think we have a bigger problem here.

I don’t know how long ago that was, but things have improved with the computer age.

It was last year, trying to get my New Jersey certification reciprocated in New York.

Did you here about that incident where cops fired over 130 shots at a car driven by 2 unarmed people?

That's the other bigger problem I talked about earlier.

Yeah, first they wanted to ban anything that holds over 10 rounds. Then that number started dropping because, you know, they’re being “reasonable” and arbitrary. Then certain locations started knocking that number down to 8, then 7, and even 6 rounds. They were even saying in New York that you could own a magazine that holds 8 rounds, but could only put 6 in it. So tell me, how many rounds can we be restricted to without the second amendment being violated. You’re in education, so you should know the answer to this.

No need -- I don't approve of such end-run tactics around the second amendment any more than I approve of end-run tactics to restrict abortion.