Not at all -- I'm telling you what happened. You seemed to think that the gun store owner was somehow compelled to sell me a gun.
Awfully nice of you to tell me what happened when I was there.
What if he wasn't for banning sticks, stones and slingshots? Would you consider the second amendment to still be intact if he got what he wanted?
So, he wants to allow people to have powerful sniper rifles capable of disabling planes and police vehicles from a mile away as well as weapons capable of blowing a door off of its hinges?
Even if things were progressively more restrictive--and you have not proven that--it does not mean politicians were actively seeking to take your guns. It could mean that they were pushing for the law to asymptotically reach the limit they thought best.You're arguing against three quarters of a century of increasingly restrictive legislative history. It's only relatively recently that the pendulum has started to swing back the other direction.
Take that up with him. I wasn't defending him. I was just mentioning what he said.
Even if things were progressively more restrictive--and you have not proven that--it does not mean politicians were actively seeking to take your guns. It could mean that they were pushing for the law to asymptotically reach the limit they thought best.
It's a reason not to trust anyone who wants something as nebulous as "sensible gun control," because you can extend "sensible gun control" to cover any type of firearm.
You totally ignored my counterpoint. No problem. I will repeat it again: How do you know that gun control is not asymptotically approaching a reasonable limit? How do you know it will go on forever?National Firearms Act of 1934 - required registration and tax of various sorts of firearms; also required one to pay a tax to manufacture certain firearms; mandated a tax and registration of certain safety/courtesy equipment- no licensing requirement for firearms dealers
Gun Control Act of 1968 - required that interstate firearms transfers and firearms sales go through a licensed and registered network of dealers
Firearms Owners Protection Act - 1986 - closed the registry of machine guns, essentially banning the manufacture of new machine guns for non law enforcement/SOT/military use
Brady Bill - 1993 - imposed five day waiting period on firearms sales, mandated the background check
Assault Weapons Ban - 1994 - banned firearms with certain cosmetic features - the most sensible feature of this law was the sunset period
Yes, of course. If someone was in favor of allowing sticks, stones, and slingshots--and aren't we all in favor of that?--the second amendment would still be intact.
What if slingshots and sticks were banned for defense but allowed for stones to be used? Would the second amendment still be intact in your opinion?
I see. And nobody should ever diet either? For it's a reason not to trust anyone who wants something as nebulous as "sensible diet," because you can extend "sensible diet" to cover any type of food eaten ever! Therefore no food ever!
And nobody should ever limit his time viewing TV? For it's a reason not to trust anyone who wants something as nebulous as "sensible limits on TV watching," because you can extend "sensible TV watching" to cover any type of TV program watched ever! Therefore no TV ever!
Are you starting to see how ridiculous your argument is? Or would you like a few more examples?
You totally ignored my counterpoint. No problem. I will repeat it again: How do you know that gun control is not asymptotically approaching a reasonable limit? How do you know it will go on forever?
You even mention an instance where gun control went the other way, to be less restrictive, with the lifting of the assault rifle ban. It only takes one counter-example to prove that an assertion that something is always going in one direction is wrong.
Right, we should not mandate diets by law. Nobody said we should.If they want to mandate it by legislative fiat, you should not trust that person.
How do you know gun limitations will not stop at reasonable limits?How do you know that it is approaching a reasonable limit?
Now you are going to quibble about whether the ending of the AWB was a "lifting" or an "ending"? Big deal. The point is that it is no more. There was once an AWB but it exists no more.The AWB was not lifted. It had a provision where it ended after ten years.
Yes, if sticks were to be banned for self-defense, I would think that would be a violation of the second amendment, and certainly a violation of reason. Your point is?
Is your line of reasoning at all relevant to the issue that Pratt argues for holding guns in our hands for possible use against people like our current administration?
Huh?Obviously, you have no problem with the banning of pretty much anything but a stick for self defense. Good luck with that.
Huh?
You are aware, of course, that I never said this or anything even remotely close to this, yes?
Do you know what is called when you make up things about people that you know are false?
Shame, shame, shame on you, Aldebaran.
Start at the top of page 18 and follow our discussion. You have been saying that banning handguns, banning “assault rifles” and so forth do not violate the second amendment. I finally narrowed down how many weapons would have to be banned in order for it to be violated in your mind, and we finally got it down to where sticks would have to be banned in order to consider the second amendment to have been violated.
Once again, this thread is about a man who said it is good to have one's gun in his hand ready to shoot at people like the current administration. It is not about condemning self defence.
This is complete and total flapdoodle!!!!
I never ever said that sticks would have to be banned in order to consider the second amendment to have been violated.
I never ever said that sticks would have to be banned in order to consider the second amendment to have been violated.
I never said anything remotely close to that!!!!!!!!
I have said over and over and over again that guns can be allowed for self defence.
Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, read what is being said, instead of making stuff up.
You aren't even in the ballpark to anything I have been saying.
This is complete and total flapdoodle.
I always find it funny when people try to apply a part of the constitution that was originally drafted in the time where most guns took up to a minute or two to reload, and the goverment didn't have much better weapons, to now where someone can fire hundreds if not thousands of rounds in the same time period, and the goverment has technology to destroy a militia before it even gets off the ground.
How many seriously think they be okay with the average person having the kind of firepower we have today?
Seriously? If you want to discuss the second amendment, why don't you start a thread to discuss the second amendment?Then please make yourself clear on at what point the second amendment can be restricted until it no longer is effective in the spirit of its intent.
Seriously? If you want to discuss the second amendment, why don't you start a thread to discuss the second amendment?
I have said nothing about the second amendment other than to answer your nonstop questions on the subject. Why continue to hijack my thread? If you prefer a different subject, why not start your own thread? This is a complex topic that could be argued ad infinitum with people who like to argue such things. Since you appear to be one who prefers to argue such things ad infinitum, be my guest, start your own thread and argue it as long as you want.
Once more, this thread is not about the second amendment, but about a man who says it is good to arm oneself ready to shoot at people like the current administration. That is the topic of this thread. Do you agree with me that Pratt was wrong to say this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?