if you want to watch gun nuts do a loop de loop....

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 50
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    ... ask them why they won't allow people to have grenade launchers and nuclear arms devices, or machine guns. (though some of those fools want people to have machine guns, too)

    the NRA is being sued for allowing its leaders to use company funds for private use.  it's totally corrupt, these days very little substance comes from the NRA
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @n8nrgmi
    it doesn't throw them through a loop. I have asked them on here before. They are completely disconnected. They see no problem with there being a line where you can't own a rocket launcher, but can own an assault rifle. But the second that line is somewhere they don't like, suddenly it is unconstitutional for the government to ban weapons. 

    They honestly cannot see how their position makes no sense. 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @HistoryBuff
    well stated
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    it's not just assault rifles... if we can have limits on guns at all, there's no reason the whole gammet of gun control can't be used, if it's reasonable. 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    "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."
    -the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.
    -“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.
    -when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn't talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too. 
    -From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun
    -when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control
    -here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era: 
    -stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
    -public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned 
    -anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
    -the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
    -all guns had to be registered and inspected 
    -some states regulated the use of gun powder
    -some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
    -some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
    -only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia 
    -several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
    -indians and blacks were barred from having guns 
    -the supreme court historically didn't touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote "fraud" on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.
    -drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.
    -half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn't generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.
    -all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone's rights, and find other reasonable exceptions
    -the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that's why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental "liberty" interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental 'liberty' interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?
    -what does "arms" mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed
    -you would have to use the word "keep" in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together. 
    -the following shows that courts have only since recently started applying strict principles for an individual right to a gun since the case Heller. (because that ruling deviates from prior precedent) the line between fundamental rights, non-fundamental rights, and privileges can be blurry in practice. but the rules have meaning.... there will now be a stronger expectation to let people have guns. if the legal system starts treating a gun like the right to water, a lot of bad policies and outcomes are possible even perhaps despite the fact that everyone knows these shouldn't be treated the same way. the legal system may expect things to get bad with a person before we can do anything about it, which again is a standard atypical from history or globally. "reasonable suspicion" someone is violent may not be sufficient, "probable cause" may not be. "beyond a reasonable doubt" probably would be, but it's hard to say someone is like that for their whole life. a good example is the fact that people on 'no fly' lists for airplanes can still buy a guy- there's a different legal standard even though everyone knows the person is too shady to be doing things like fly planes, and buy guns. expanded background check and treating guns like cars would simply weed out the incompetent, undisciplined, and unmotivated, violent, and mentally disturbed.... if promoting the use of guns causes more murder, do we really want these sorts of people having guns? granting fundamental rights for legal purposes instead of a practical right will cause excessive litigation to deprive people from guns on an individual basis when they shouldn't have had them to begin with. thus, because Heller got the law wrong, society is approaching a system where people can be unfit to have guns but still society still be forced or otherwise prone to allowing them to have guns anyway.

    -the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted.  for example, here is the proper context of washington's first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context)- in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia... so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a "requisite" condition:
    ""Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
    A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
    The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.""

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,355
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Well, this suit does not reflect gun policy much one way or the other.  Let's recall that Oliver North tried hard to save the organization by exposing LaPierre's flagrant corruption but was prevented after a bitter power struggle.  Gun Rights Advocates and particularly  NRA members should be glad to remove such an important impediment to  effective organization and legislation.  Some less corrupt portion of that movement would be smart to start a new leaner, cleaner, more effective organization right now and try to capture as much NRA membership as possible before the infighting fragments the movement.

    I've always said George W Bush missed his true calling as Baseball Commissioner but he might be an excellent candidate to found a new organization in the tradition of the old NRA.  I also agree with Trump that they should incorporate in Texas.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @Greyparrot
    what's your theory as to why normal people can't have grenade launchers and nuclear arms devices? 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,940
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Supply and demand.
  • thett3
    thett3 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 603
    2
    2
    7
    thett3 avatar
    thett3
    --> @HistoryBuff
    it doesn't throw them through a loop. I have asked them on here before. They are completely disconnected. They see no problem with there being a line where you can't own a rocket launcher, but can own an assault rifle. But the second that line is somewhere they don't like, suddenly it is unconstitutional for the government to ban weapons. 

    They honestly cannot see how their position makes no sense. 
    Where should the line be drawn? Only 4% of homicides involve rifles, and "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles. To be fair, a solid third of firearms involved were unclassified but it seems very unlikely that "assault weapons" were used in more than 8% or so of firearm deaths. With this in mind, why should a responsible gun owner be prohibited from owning them? Unless you believe that all guns should be banned, which is a different debate but at least the position is consistent. 

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @thett3
    Where should the line be drawn? Only 4% of homicides involve rifles, and "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles. To be fair, a solid third of firearms involved were unclassified but it seems very unlikely that "assault weapons" were used in more than 8% or so of firearm deaths. With this in mind, why should a responsible gun owner be prohibited from owning them? Unless you believe that all guns should be banned, which is a different debate but at least the position is consistent. 
    I am totally open to having that kind discussion. One where it is acknowledged that it is perfectly normal for the government to put limits on what weapons should be available. However, that isn't the sort of discussion the right or gun lobby groups allow to happen. They simply scream and cry that any attempt to limit access to any gun is tyranny and unconstitutional, when it very obviously isn't. 

    In my personal opinion, guns should be limited to things that would be useful for hunting. So like a shotgun, semi auto hunting rifle etc. I don't see a reason why anyone would need a fully auto weapon. I also think magazine size limits is also prudent. Set a max size for a magazine at 5 or 10 rounds. No one needs to be able to empty a 30 round mag into people. 

  • thett3
    thett3 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 603
    2
    2
    7
    thett3 avatar
    thett3
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Restrictions of some kind are obviously reasonable (theres no reason for a civilian to own a nuclear warhead to go to the most extreme), but what I don't understand is the fixation on "assault weapons", which represent a tiny portion of overall gun deaths. I feel like it's because they have been used in very well publicized mass shootings which, while horrible, are statistical anomalies. A handgun ban would save far more lives if gun control works as advertised (not convinced that it does.)...so why the focus on assault weapons? Serious question, not trying to do a "gotcha" type thing.

    Also, I'm not trying to be nitpicky or rude but automatic weapons have been banned in the United States for quite some time, "assault weapons" are all semi-automatic and really not that different from what you would envision as a standard hunting rifle. They are marginally more deadly which is why the military uses them but the difference between an M1 Garand, which looks pretty much like a standard wooden rifle, and an AR-15 really is not as severe as people would think...one just looks a lot scarier. And as someone who is a gun enthusiast that is open to reasonable restrictions (for example, I think high capacity magazines should be legal but more strictly regulated) the amount of misinformation coming from the left is frustrating. The previous assault weapons ban, for example, had some of the dumbest restrictions imaginable. Not to excuse the people who act like banning bump stocks will result in a tyrannical government, but the rhetoric on both sides is really bad/annoying
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @thett3
    there's a benefit cost analysis with assault rifles. it is extremely rare for someone to need one for self defense. with those riots going on, it was plausible, but i haven't heard of any situation where they were needed. but, on the other hand, it is not common but it's a lot more frequent for someone to use one of those guns for mass shootings, with lots of people dead. 

    perhaps there should be more restrictions on all rifles, if they are all the same. in my uninformed understanding, assault rifles shoot faster and do more damage when there is a shot. 

    but in the end, i dont think banning assault rifles are all that big of a deal. it's not common for them to be used in murder.

    the real debate, is in a whole host of gun control laws that could be passed, that isn't. if reasonable is the standard, as it should be.... there's plenty of room for improvement. 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    to be sure, ive seen folks post examples where assualt rifles were used in defense. the key, though, is that i dont remember ever seeing an example where they were necessary over other guns. i'm sure there's an example where someone was ganged up on, but it's not common. 
  • thett3
    thett3 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 603
    2
    2
    7
    thett3 avatar
    thett3
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Can you define an assault weapon for me?
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,152
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @n8nrgmi
    ask them why they won't allow people to have grenade launchers and nuclear arms devices, or machine guns. (though some of those fools want people to have machine guns, too)
    Americans can legally own grenade launchers, machine guns, and even fighter jets. During the Revolutionary Era, many Americans owned cannons for private use especially in the shipping industry. At that point in time however, the 14th Amendment didn’t exist so states could create their own laws limiting such methods. The main problem comes with DC v Heller which solidified the notion of a firearm being used for personal safety and McDonald v Chicago incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the states.

    However, at the same time DC v Heller clearly states that regulation is possible on a federal level since as you stated no right is absolute. Do I need a nuke to protect myself? Not really since it would ensure my own destruction.

    Your whole argument about the militia initially at that time might be true but you also have to consider that every person between 16 and 60 (correct me if I’m wrong) was required to be a part of the militia and thus required to own a gun. They never regulated how they used the gun and many state constitutions enabled the lawful carry of weapon for personal protection. Now, we know that this requirement currently isn’t necessary. All of this changes with the aforementioned incorporation of the Second Amendment. If according to the militia definition, Americans could carry firearms and be used for self-defense which wasn’t outlawed at that time and openly accepted as a common right then there’s no authority the federal government has to outright ban them. Using a militia definition there are arguably no boundaries so gun restriction arguments fall apart.

    That being said, states do have the authority to regulate under the current law, just not the right to outright ban all firearms or create a barrier that serves the same purpose.
  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    --> @n8nrgmi
    It'd have to be some kind of communal ownership of a few devices, with a few elected representatives being entrusted with their use. But in practice how is this different from simply having a (greatly de-centralized) military?
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,152
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @thett3
    Can you define an assault weapon for me?
    A scary looking weapon
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,940
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    The terminator owns tanks.

  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @thett3
    an AR is a semi automatic, like a regular rifle is. i thought an AR had more power or great damage but i could be wrong. here is a point i see someone distinguish...

    "Folks who love their toys are anxious to show you that their toy (an AR15) is almost identical in construction and operation to any other sporting semi-automatic. Here’s how they differ. The M-16 was designed to train the maximum number of rounds on a target as possible, with the least muzzle jerk, and spend the minimum time on replacing an empty magazine as possible. It is spectacularly successful in meeting these requirements. The AR15 is modeled on the M16, but will not fire fully automatic unless equipped with a bump-stock. The combination puts a perfectly legal lethal weapon of war in the hands of any 18 year old who can summon up the wind to buy one. People who have noticed the recent mass murders of school children notice that this is the preferred weapon chosen to mow them down. "
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    i may have misunderstood my quote there, but i think he's saying they shoot more efficiently. 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    this link has a lot of people saying they're all the same... 

    i may have misunderstood it. so do mass shooters just pick an AR cause they look scarier? is that all there is to it? 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Hmmm... explosive weapon vs firearm. Totally the same thing, amirite?

    *Conservatives get owned by my (obviously) vast knowledge of guns*
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @bmdrocks21 @Greyparrot @ILikePie5
    he's off his meds again or really bored, same old questions expecting different answers, you know what that sounds like.

    Hmmm... explosive weapon vs firearm. Totally the same thing, amirite?
    when you have use self defense from a great distance, or take down a whole building, vehicle or crowd.

    though not having machine guns is dumb, even though you can with a permit, if you can find and afford one.

    a lot of local groups have been taking members away from the NRA for a while now, which when you think about the lack of ads etc as of late, makes sense.

    what's really sad (I'm being serious) after all the threads, links and posts he's seemed to have learned very little (I was going to say nothing but I'm feeling charitable)



  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,940
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    Lol, a smart mass killer would get a semi-auto shotgun with a modified clip. Much better at close range than an AR-15.
    Like the one Anton used here.

    Not as scary looking I guess.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 751
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @bmdrocks21
    even explosive arms are arms. by the extreme logic of conservatives, grenade launchers should be legal. but, if you accept reasonable infringement on arms, there's no reason we can't have all kinds of gun control laws.