Another massacre! 12 killed in mass shooting at bar in Thousand Oaks, California

[as2]

IMO your logic is faulty because rights are not granted by the constitution, they human rights that are enshrined in the constitution. The court doesn't decide if you have a right to for example own a HCM, all the court does is decide of that right is enshrined in the constitution.

In that case, you're argument is not mine.

[EJB]

IMO your logic is faulty because rights are not granted by the constitution, they human rights that are enshrined in the constitution. The court doesn't decide if you have a right to for example own a HCM, all the court does is decide of that right is enshrined in the constitution.

And what's the practical difference?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I answered the question and made my position known so I am done.

[as2]

I answered the question and made my position known so I am done.

I'll second that.

[avromie7]

And what's the practical difference?

Take slavery as an example, the right to own slaves was protected by the constitution, even though it infringed on the rights of the slaves to be free.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I'll second that.

You have to pack for LAS to? 

[EJB]

Take slavery as an example, the right to own slaves was protected by the constitution, even though it infringed on the rights of the slaves to be free.

I don't understand your point. The law in this country is based on the constitution and how it is interpreted. You can't make an argument that because you disagree with its interpretation, the law doesn't apply to you. Similarly, you can't make an argument that people have a natural right to own HCM because you want them to have that natural right. Regardless, I've never heard a natural right argument in relation to bearing arms. I've only heard of a constitutional argument - so I think it would make sense for our court to interpret exactly what that right includes.

[EJB]

You have to pack for LAS to? 

You're going to LAS now? Keep the table warm for early December

[as2]

You have to pack for LAS to? 

ALOL

[avromie7]

I don't understand your point. The law in this country is based on the constitution and how it is interpreted. You can't make an argument that because you disagree with its interpretation, the law doesn't apply to you. Similarly, you can't make an argument that people have a natural right to own HCM because you want them to have that natural right. Regardless, I've never heard a natural right argument in relation to bearing arms. I've only heard of a constitutional argument - so I think it would make sense for our court to interpret exactly what that right includes.

The natural right (to self defense) argument is the reason why we have a the right to bear arm enshrined in the constitution.

[incendia]

I feel like we've been through this before.

"assault weapons" / HCM account for a tiny fraction of murders in this country.

Banning them would be a huge hit to the primary reason of the 2A, protecting the citizens from a tyrannical government.

Maybe in 1789 but today your AR15 at most will scratch the paint on a tank and won't even touch a F-16 or predator drone

The Taliban and Alqueda have access to much heavier weaponry than you do in the US, and they still haven't been able to get rid of the US Army after 17 years. If the US Army decided to impose martial law in US your AR15s, HCMs, and Bump Stocks won't stop them.

[incendia]

Please don't say that we do nothing. A lot has been done. Was it helpful? Some yes, some not so much. There is a fine line between solving a problem, and restricting rights, which is another major factor with guns.

According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States the only Federal legislation passed since the federal assault weapons ban allows LEOs to carry everywhere and protects manufactures dealers

Even legislation that supposedly has republican support, like bump stock restrictions, doesn't get floor votes

[EJB]

The natural right (to self defense) argument is the reason why we have a the right to bear arm enshrined in the constitution.

And how would that include HCM?

[avromie7]

And how would that include HCM?

The natural right or the constitutional right?

[EJB]

Maybe in 1789 but today your AR15 at most will scratch the paint on a tank and won't even touch a F-16 or predator drone

The Taliban and Alqueda have access to much heavier weaponry than you do in the US, and they still haven't been able to get rid of the US Army after 17 years. If the US Army decided to impose martial law in US your AR15s, HCMs, and Bump Stocks won't stop them.

In today's day and age, we should have the right to build our own nukes to protect against a tyrinnical government

[EJB]

The natural right or the constitutional right?

Either. And how about the natural right of safety? Is that important too? If allowing people to have a personal arsenal, as good as they are, puts other people at risk, does that infringe upon their "natural rights?"

[avromie7]

Maybe in 1789 but today your AR15 at most will scratch the paint on a tank and won't even touch a F-16 or predator drone

The Taliban and Alqueda have access to much heavier weaponry than you do in the US, and they still haven't been able to get rid of the US Army after 17 years. If the US Army decided to impose martial law in US your AR15s, HCMs, and Bump Stocks won't stop them.

Just by the fact that so many people have guns does a lot to keep the government from becoming tyrannical. If we had an all out civil war, it would be extremely difficult for the military to take control of the country.

[avromie7]

Either. And how about the natural right of safety? Is that important too? If allowing people to have a personal arsenal, as good as they are, puts other people at risk, does that infringe upon their "natural rights?"

The natural right to self defense allows you to defend yourself in any way shape or form. The right protected by the constitution is up to the court to decide what is or is not included.

[incendia]

Abolish 2A!

They are on to trucks now.

 

no but there are lots policies that we can implement that are within the 2A

[EJB]

The natural right to self defense allows you to defend yourself in any way shape or form. The right protected by the constitution is up to the court to decide what is or is not included.

And if I wanted to defend myself with a nuke or explosives (perhaps plant them around my property to defend it), is that within my natural rights?

I don't think many people agree that you can defend yourself "in any way shape or form." Most historical and current laws I have seen limit the amount of force to that which is "reasonable," which is not defined by the defender, but by a judge or jury. On what basis do you believe that you can defend yourself in any way shape or form?