Members banned from this thread: cancel2 2022 and anatta |
Don't be afraid to see what you see
Lightbringer (04-09-2021)
Stupid argument.
Often we hear in discussions on limits to the 2nd amendment from those who favor greater constitutional restriction suggesting that those who support the right to own so called "assault weapons" must also by default support owning "nukes" and other devices.... I would like to address that once and for all and give you the basis why that argument is faulty given the framers intent, and philosophy of liberty and the US Constitution.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants -Thomas Jefferson
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws -John Adams
So now, it is clear the founding fathers believed we should have access to every weapon available for defense of self and nation. So the argument comes up, does that mean they thought we should have access to nukes, et al?
Lets think about it...
The founding fathers drew thier inspiration from John Locke... "no one ought to harm another in his life, heath, liberty or possessions."
Again I give you Thomas Jefferson - "The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless."
So what does this all mean? Well lets put it in modern perspective... You have a right to defend yourself with effective tools for this purpose, but you may not molest, attack, or infringe on another who is not attacking you first.... Ok... we got that.... what does that mean? It means that said tool should be able to be controlled so that it does not molest, attack, or infringe on the right of another who is not attacking you first...
Therefore, all semi automatic weapons, pistols, rifles, even so called "assault rifles", one pull of the trigger per bullet, each shot is a conscious effort. "i shoot that, I shoot that," ie you are making the choice to shoot that which is offending your liberty with each conscious pull of the trigger are covered under the 2nd amendment.
Clearly, this falls in line with what our founding fathers believed.... Lets take the next level of weapons, Fully automatic....
One can argue that these weapons are indiscriminate that, you are not consciously "shooting that", but "shooting in that direction multiple shots with one pull of the trigger".... Each shot is not a conscious effort to defend you or your life, They have a much larger chance of "infringing" on a non belligerent aggressor (read innocent citizen), than a semi automatic rifle....
ok so there is some argument for and against machine gun ownership in the US. I get that....Now here is where it becomes apparent why a nuclear weapon and other indiscriminate weapons are not covered by this amendment....
a Nuke, kills innocents, causes harm for years, it's not just those you are defending yourself against. So they are out. obviously...
this would include also, land mines, grenades, rocket launcers, "bazzookas", chemical weapons, or anything the opponents of the 2nd amendment can think of that are indiscriminate..So in conclusion:
Nukes are not covered by the 2nd for private citizens, because they are not discriminant enough for use in self defense
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Yep. I'd also add that THIS is the very reason I used nuclear weapon as an example of an 'arm' you can't 'bear'. It was described as ridiculous, but as soon as I took it down a notch, it became an idiotic semantics discussion instead of focusing on the OP. You cannot purchase a fully automatic machine gun manufactured after 1986. So both examples are relevant.
Phantasmal (04-09-2021)
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
i'm very glad about not being a constitutional lawyer, since they seem to be the ones fucking shit up regarding the constitution. but since you're chiming in, maybe you can explain why YOU think it's not arbitrary, since there isn't a bit of difference between an M16-A2 built on May 17, 1986 and an M16-A2 built on May 20, 1986.....................
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Bookmarks