Holding gun makers accountable

[ChoppedLiver]

And no, you can't have an attack helicopter either- thank god.

Yes, you can.

Nukes too.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Yes, you can.

Nukes too.

So terrorists can legally possess chemical and nuclear weapons according to you, nice to know. The absurdities of the arguments here are truly mind blowing. Guns should be for protection and hunting only.

Nevermind, I forgot you don't read well. I'll spell it out for you...

Thus it is unequivocally stated, all weapons of military utility are protected.

 

[ChoppedLiver]

So terrorists can legally possess chemical and nuclear weapons according to you, nice to know.

You're not a terrorist until you have committed a criminal act of terror.

Then, you would be a criminal and not be allowed to possess weapons.

Not in the U.S. anyway.

For all others, arms possession is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

and that act was upheld by the SCOTUS decision of United States v. Miller (1939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller .

Use of those weapons is covered under SCOTUS decision of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The absurdities of the arguments here are truly mind blowing.

It's not absurd.

It's the law.

Guns should be for protection and hunting only.

They are.

But you forgot target/match shooting (plinking, practice, competition) in addition to protection and hunting.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Yes I forgot competition sport, maybe you need nuclear weapons for that as well? For protection, a handgun is more then sufficient. For hunting, a rifle is enough. There is no reason for private citizens to own military hardware at all.

 

[ChoppedLiver]

Yes I forgot competition sport, maybe you need nuclear weapons for that as well?

It is not a question of need.

It is a RIGHT.

Something you limeys probably wouldn't understand.

 

[moon]

It is not a question of need.

It is a RIGHT.

It's a right that has to be weighed against the rights of others. Taking the extreme example- children have a right to go to school without being massacred. Do you understand the rights of others ?

 

[moon]

I appreciate the admission of ignorance of the 2nd Amendment / gun laws; it will inform my exchanges with you in the future. Problem is you suffer from a profound deficiency in understanding what rights are and how they are enforced as well. Your theory about this being a human rights concern is a sound byte smokescreen for utter BS. Your characterization is an insult to the cause or real human rights.

It's not ' ignorance ' at all- I'm just not versed in Constitutional law.
Currently, there exists a ' right ' to be armed- but this ' right ' is subject to a myriad of differing state laws. These laws exist to protect the rights of others. They are indeed ' human rights ' and it would appear that the " profound deficiency " in understanding what rights are is yours. It is gun-toting rights-tramplers who represent an insult to the concept of human rights, not those who agree with my own views.
Laws are subject to change, including the 2005 Act, and so is the Constitution. Clearly, any gun laws which enable- even promote- homicide are ripe for change- and that's the job of people who value human life over the ' rights ' of shooters. We're in it for the long haul. Every murder and massacre is a clarion for change.
I'll bear in mind your contempt for the rights of others in any future exchanges.

Well, the National Firearms Act of 1934 does not ban machine guns, all it does is demand a $200 tax be paid when the firearm is transferred between private citizens.

Back in 1934, Congress understood it could not ban any class of military useful arm that could be fired /crewed by a single soldier, now some people argue it can (you for instance). How did that shift happen? Was the Constitution amended to grant Congress new powers?

I'll take a look.

It is indisputable that the NFA-34 implicates arms that according to US v Miller are 2nd Amendment protected arms. The Congressional power to tax (as opposed to simply "regulate" arms, claiming powers under the commerce clause) is given special deference and has thus far withstood challenge on 2nd Amendment grounds. No serious challenge has been brought since DC v Heller (2008) though, which re-affirmed that the 2nd secures an individual right thus invalidating the various "collective right" interpretations hatched in the lower federal courts in 1942.

So, right now it's a, "we'll see".

I'll see if I can turn up any authoritative views to the contrary. We'll see.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It's true that I don't know a great deal about gun law- but I'm sane. On the other hand you claim to be very knowledgeable - and think you're entitled to a sawn-off shotgun, a machine gun and an attack helicopter.

that does not make you sane, nor does it make us crazy. do you have the certifications to make such a preposterous diagnosis?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Guns should be for protection and hunting only.

that is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There is no reason for private citizens to own military hardware at all.

yes there is. it's called the 'security of a free state'.

 

[Abatis]

It's not ' ignorance ' at all- I'm just not versed in Constitutional law.

Oh, uhhhhh, OK . . .

Currently, there exists a ' right ' to be armed- but this ' right ' is subject to a myriad of differing state laws. These laws exist to protect the rights of others.

The laws that prohibit the simple possession of a firearm do not protect the rights of any citizen; they only make those in power more comfortable by restricting the rights of citizens. I have no problem with laws criminalizing actual behavior like brandishing a firearm or threatening someone with it or actually shooting at someone when there's no threat to your or others life or limb and of course, the laws against murder I support.

They are indeed ' human rights ' and it would appear that the " profound deficiency " in understanding what rights are is yours. It is gun-toting rights-tramplers who represent an insult to the concept of human rights, not those who agree with my own views.

The claim of a "right" means that someone is accountable for its violation. You are throwing around the term in a way that denigrates the real meaning and frustrates the actual protection of rights. You've read Chicken-Little as a child no?

My ownership of a gun and my use of the gun within the criminal law as I mentioned above - IS NOT VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF ANYONE ELSE.

Your heaping of blame and derision of law-abiding gun owners works only to absolve and give cover to real criminals and rights abusers.

Laws are subject to change, including the 2005 Act, and so is the Constitution.

And until those events take place, the lawful possession and use of firearms is to be respected.

Clearly, any gun laws which enable- even promote- homicide are ripe for change- and that's the job of people who value human life over the ' rights ' of shooters. We're in it for the long haul. Every murder and massacre is a clarion for change.

Your self-aggrandizement is hilarious and frightening at the same time. Typical leftist authoritarian; you know what's best for everyone and you are going to give it to us whether we want it or not (ironically, all at the point of a gun).

Simple question, DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SAFE?

I'll bear in mind your contempt for the rights of others in any future exchanges.

Just because I recognize, understand and accept the nature, scope and enforcement of rights certainly does not mean I hold them in contempt. Your misunderstanding is what nurtures and maintains your contempt for your fellow man that is so evident in your hyperbolic descriptions of people who simply have an oppositional opinion. Your attitude towards gun owners belies your disgustingly fake claims of cherishing rights . . . It is very evident that you would be enthusiastically herding people like me, at the point of a gun, into cattle cars for the good of society.

You are a menace and a sworn enemy of freedom and liberty and rights, not a protector.

I'll see if I can turn up any authoritative views to the contrary. We'll see.

Your assumption is that I must be wrong simply because, in your admitted present state of ignorance, you feel I'm wrong.

Your self-assigned task is not to reverse your ignorance and learn, but simply to find "authoritative" (LOL) confirmation of your ignorant opinion.

Well, I wish you luck.

Be sure to come back all full of piss and vinegar when you think you got it.

 

[moon]

Oh, uhhhhh, OK . . .

If you're a Constitutional lawyer then say so.

The laws that prohibit the simple possession of a firearm do not protect the rights of any citizen; they only make those in power more comfortable by restricting the rights of citizens.

They make the unarmed populace more comfortable too - and they have a right to enjoy life .

I have no problem with laws criminalizing actual behavior like brandishing a firearm or threatening someone with it or actually shooting at someone when there's no threat to your or others life or limb and of course, the laws against murder I support.

Of course. That's the nature of civilisation.

The claim of a "right" means that someone is accountable for its violation. You are throwing around the term in a way that denigrates the real meaning and frustrates the actual protection of rights. You've read Chicken-Little as a child no?

My ownership of a gun and my use of the gun within the criminal law as I mentioned above - IS NOT VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF ANYONE ELSE.

Well, if you were to keep it within the confines of your own property then it would only be a threat to yourself, your family and visitors. In a public place I believe that it does affect the rights of others and I'd like to see the movement of lethal weapons restricted by law. Maybe it already is. As a case in point I once sat sunning myself beneath a tree and a passing moron blasted a bird out of it. You might not think that my ' rights ' were impinged- but I do.

Your heaping of blame and derision of law-abiding gun owners works only to absolve and give cover to real criminals and rights abusers.

To my mind the division isn't all that well marked- and it's a line that's easily crossed.

And until those events take place, the lawful possession and use of firearms is to be respected.

In some instances, I agree. However , like millions of other people I'm opposed to civilian ownership of military weapons.

Your self-aggrandizement is hilarious and frightening at the same time. Typical leftist authoritarian; you know what's best for everyone and you are going to give it to us whether we want it or not (ironically, all at the point of a gun).

Well, you and others like you scare my kids. Me too. It's my duty to try to turn the legal tables in favor of the unarmed population. Keep it at home.

Simple question, DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SAFE?

I believe so, yes.

Just because I recognize, understand and accept the nature, scope and enforcement of rights certainly does not mean I hold them in contempt. Your misunderstanding is what nurtures and maintains your contempt for your fellow man that is so evident in your hyperbolic descriptions of people who simply have an oppositional opinion. Your attitude towards gun owners belies your disgustingly fake claims of cherishing rights . . . It is very evident that you would be enthusiastically herding people like me, at the point of a gun, into cattle cars for the good of society.

I think that talk like that verges on extremism. You wouldn't pass my test on gun ownership.

You are a menace and a sworn enemy of freedom and liberty and rights, not a protector.

You're a prime candidate for disarming, no doubt about that.

Your assumption is that I must be wrong simply because, in your admitted present state of ignorance, you feel I'm wrong.

You're currently supported by bad law and that's open to challenge. It won't change tomorrow- but I think that change will come.

Your self-assigned task is not to reverse your ignorance and learn, but simply to find "authoritative" (LOL) confirmation of your ignorant opinion.

That's how laymen go about fighting for what they feel is right. Quite often they win.

Well, I wish you luck.

and I wish you good management.

Be sure to come back all full of piss and vinegar when you think you got it.

I'll put some money where my mouth is.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Well, you and others like you scare my kids. Me too. It's my duty to try to turn the legal tables in favor of the unarmed population. Keep it at home.

Your ignorance based fear is meaningless. Emotion has no place in law.

 

[moon]

Emotion has no place in law.

False. Laws are compiled by people of emotion for people of emotion. Some are good, some are bad and it is emotion which drives the process. Your statement is patently absurd.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

False. Laws are compiled by people of emotion for people of emotion. Some are good, some are bad and it is emotion which drives the process. Your statement is patently absurd.

So then, because the majority of Israelis FEEL that their actions are right and just and their laws reflect this, they therefore must be just? Ok.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

You would strip rights of those who have harmed no one and have no desire to do so because you are ignorant and have no desire to cede that ignorance. You are no champion for rights or humanity, you are a fool in every sense of the word. You do not offer safety to anyone, only the illusion of it to yourself, because you have never been in a place that is not 'safe' and therefore FEEL no one is in need of protection.

 

[moon]

So then, because the majority of Israelis FEEL that their actions are right and just and their laws reflect this, they therefore must be just? Ok.

Not at all. Nazi laws were unjust- but that's not a topic for a thread concerning US gun law.

 

[moon]

You would strip rights of those who have harmed no one and have no desire to do so because you are ignorant and have no desire to cede that ignorance. You are no champion for rights or humanity, you are a fool in every sense of the word. You do not offer safety to anyone, only the illusion of it to yourself, because you have never been in a place that is not 'safe' and therefore FEEL no one is in need of protection.

How many senses of the word ' fool ' are you aware of ?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, you and others like you scare my kids. Me too. It's my duty to try to turn the legal tables in favor of the unarmed population. Keep it at home.

Just because you choose ignorance based fear and willingly walk around unable to effectively defend yourself is not a good enough reason for me to choose the same. i'll take it with me wherever I go, still.

 

[moon]

Just because you choose ignorance based fear and willingly walk around unable to effectively defend yourself is not a good enough reason for me to choose the same. i'll take it with me wherever I go, still.

No, I can ' effectively defend myself ' against most unarmed people. Of course, I'm at a disadvantage if you're armed- and that's how you'd prefer it, no doubt.