How To Argue For Gun Control.

HOLDING OFF 250 men was achieved by noise and the fear it created, not because he killed 250 men!
You are wrong in that! Noise works very well, just ask Leo major! Used it to his advantage as well!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0mtzJPGmwTA

Or ask the scots who used this method by making lots of noise, surrounding the Brits in small numbers, running arounda, shooting arrows from many locations, making them believe their numbers were greater.

 

Because they aren't flawed and I defended them.

It couldn't any further from the truth. Those who want to take rights away to the point of enslaving or even killing them aren't fine people. Those who think that they are superior to other races but wouldn't hurt a fly are wrong, but otherwise fine people.

Where did I said that? Of course we should combat racism on an intellectual level whenever we can.

Wow. Joke went right over your head, didn't it? And you accuse me of being irrational.

 

Which is actually true. The constitution doesn't grant anything. The right to bear arms among other rights is a pre existing natural right. The constitution only protects these rights.

From the ruling it states:

"Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States."

Nowhere in the ruling did it allow states to outright prohibit militia gatherings. In fact it said this about individuals keeping and bearing arms.

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

Because I specifically asked for previous rulings that stated the right to bear arms is not an individual right. Not for rulings saying the government can ban certain guns.

The one by the ninth circuit is the only relevant ruling and it isn't even a national ruling. It's a ruling from a circuit that is known for its liberal leanings.

 

If I don't buy guns, someone else will!

 

But you're responding to something I didn't asked. I asked for previous rulings that said that the right to bear arms is not an individual right.

I disagree with the ninth circuit's ruling based on its merits and the fact that ironically, previous rulings recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms. And what evidence do you have that our founding fathers were liberal in the modern sense?

 

I know he didn't kill 250 men, that is the point, He held them off with a machine gun! What about this made him able to hold them off single handedly, when he isn't killing them? It was the noise.

 

Mac

LOL – I stand by the posts in this thread - as I’ve said many times already you say these things but when asked to actually point to where you actually have addressed the many outstanding criticisms you become all evasive, and the outcome is always that you can produce no evidence.

But as I’ve mentioned racism is by its very nature a violent philosophy it is about removing the rights (and in some cases lives) of people that are seen as been inferior and even the dumbest racist knows that cannot be done peacefully.

Anyone that chooses to stand alongside the KKK and Nazis knows they are part of a violent movement, so I wonder why you think these are fine people?

Let’s go back to the hypothetical ‘fine’ Auschwitz guard he might have thought that killing Jews was a good idea long before he was given the chance to gas them, was he a ‘fine’ person when he wanted to but hadn’t been given the chance and then not fine when he got to do what he wanted?

Also when does discrimination based on racist ideas go from being fine to not being fine? Yes we have the thing about enslavement and murder what about not getting served by some businesses? I mean there are people that think business owners should be allowed to not serve black people if they don’t want to.

That seems to run counter to you view that being a racist is fine and that racist are fine people.

Sorry were you aiming for humour, oh I see what you did there ha ha ha you evaded the question oh that’s so funny, you really are funny, hey man you ever thought of writing your own sitcom, I mean ha ha ha, I’m laughing so much my gonads are going to explode.

So you have had your “Joke” now can you reply to the question.

You said you KNOW (in caps) “for a fact” that Americans are superior to “Brits”

Was that another one of your ‘funny’ jokes? Remember it was in the context of you explaining why it is ok to be a racist that would like to kill those who they see as inferior but hasn’t yet.

So is it possible for you to answer the question without being humorous?

 

And here we have John Kelly basically saying that those white people who fought to keep slavery were honourable decent and ‘fine’ people, ok they may have thought black people were inferior and that therefore it was ok to treat them as property, to exploit, to rape, to maim and to kill them, but the important thing is that these racists where honourable, decent and ‘fine’ people.

Which to me seems to be sending the message that people today that think black people (and others) are inferior are fine people.

Its makes me wonder how prevalent is this view amongst the right wing and since its mainly right wingers that own guns and are more likely to oppose gun control how prevalent are racist view amongst gun owners?

 

To ad to the above - Kelly’s statements also seem to be condoning armed rebellion - he is saying that to him it was ‘honourable’ to rise up against your government if it wanted do things you don’t like - in this case curtail slavery.

Well we know this is a common theme amongst right wingers and right wing gun owners especially, who say that one of the main reasons they want guns is to raise armed revolt if the government did things they didn’t like (eg gun control for example).

 

What don't I understand?

First off, this is after the 1800s ruling saying that states cannot bar private ownership if you want to claim that the older rulings (plural) were in favor of collective gun ownership rather than individual ownership. Secondly, at least what I found in Wikipedia, it doesn't specifically state that citizens don't have individual rights to bear arms. It just says that certain weapons aren't covered.

"Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Also the ruling is factually wrong about short barreled shotguns not being in military use. The military and police have been using short barreled shotguns for some time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun

Not only that but the notion of restricting guns under a certain length is ridiculous on its face. For one, it doesn't take much more than a hacksaw to make a literal saw off shotgun if a criminal wants to do it, for another, sawed off shotguns aren't that much easier to conceal than their legal counterparts, and finally their are legal work arounds to beat the NFA such as the Mossberg shockwave.

You're first sentence is a double negative so I'm not sure if you're saying can or can't prevent private ownership.

That only means the law was never challenged in court. It doesn't mean they were right.

Again, that only means that they were never challenged in court.

Couldn't respond to your poinys on how the founding fayhers were liberals but a lot of tgem were flimsy at best.

 

You've provided examples of government regulating certain guns. You haven't provided a single national case where the ruling states that the right is a collective right rather than an individual right.

It depend on what you mean by legal.

 

I was joking from the start. It should've been obvious with the all caps lettering and absolutism of my statement.

 

Mac

Ooooh well haven’t you turned into quite the little joker, and I know jokes are not so funny when you have to explain them (often a problem with jokes that are not that funny to begin with) but can you tell me - is the joke the thing about racists being fine people or about your cack-handed attempt to evade the questions put to you?

 

Not so. Before the ruling any level of government can outlaw CERTAIN guns in certain places. No national ruling stated that tge right to bear arms is collective rather than individual.

Technically, the government does have the legal right to ban certain guns but it doesn't have the constitutional right.