Do you like guns or gun control?

[:) Smiley]

Don't worry, in a couple of decades guns will be made obsolete by progammable nano-robots.

[Vesayen]

As cool as nano tech is and boy is it cool, it will proboably be the death of us...... wait till someone makes a nano dissasembler that can self replicate and use energy from its enviroment as a power source .



LOTS of cool stuff in the mean time though!

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Smiley
Don't worry, in a couple of decades guns will be made obsolete by progammable nano-robots.

Yes, we'll all have to move on to the enhanced radiation weapons then.

[Odin]

The constitution says "keep and bear arms". it says nothing about not being allowed to regulate how people get those weapons.

[Vesayen]

Rule:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Explination:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


Very few things in the constitution have specific clarafication on them.... the second amendment does.
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.

Obviously regulating how people get arms, prevents them from bearing and keeping them.

[St Leo]

Look... as long as I don't have a gun, and no one I know has a gun, and I never see or hear any guns... farmers can keep their damn guns. They better stay the **** away from cities, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Rule:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Explination:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


Very few things in the constitution have specific clarafication on them.... the second amendment does.
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.

Obviously regulating how people get arms, prevents them from bearing and keeping them.

So do you think "Congress shall make no law" restricting freedom of speech means that all defamation laws are unconstitutional?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen


So?

SO:

1. Obviously the Army might shoot
2. The disparity between the Feds and rebels today will not only be that of numbers and supplies. It will be a grand chasm of capabilities.

Thus why gun control is insane.

NO, actually, why your thinking that a gun might save you is insane. It amazes me that you can be given a simple example of how having a gun would do nothing to protect you, yet you can be so dense as to think it in any ways helps you case.

Because the promise is in the constitution.

What "promise"?

You have a right, but 220 years of American practice shows your rights are NOT absolute as you claim them to be.

As I said....

'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.'

How exactly do you interpret that as anything but what it says? We have lord knows how many documents by the founding fathers TELLING us what it means if it unclear. The constitution clearly says that an armed citizenry is neccesary to keep us free.

Are you a member of a well REGULATED militia? If not, obviously you are breaking what the constitution plainly says.

Oh, and Einstein....since you are such a crack constitutional scholar, who exactly REGULATES said militias?

[Vesayen]

Freedom of speech is not clearly defined, nor freedom of the press..... the second amendment could not possibly be written any more plain.



Dictionaries are wonderful:

Regulated-"To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits."

[GePap]

NOt knowing how to use a dictionary thought is terrible, since that is clearly not the ONLY definition of the word.

Intellectual dishonesty is also a bad thing.

And how is "bear arms" "CLEARER" than "freedom of speech"?

[GePap]

From Dictionary.com if you put in "regulated"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regulated

regulated

adj 1: controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law; "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature" [ant: unregulated] 2: marked by system or regularity or discipline; "a quiet ordered house"; "an orderly universe"; "a well regulated life" [syn: ordered, orderly]

NOte how

what you put is actually part of REGULATE

reg·u·late Audio pronunciation of "regulated" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

AND not even the first, but the last, definition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Freedom of speech is not clearly defined, nor freedom of the press..... the second amendment could not possibly be written any more plain.



Dictionaries are wonderful:

Regulated-"To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits."

Actually I'd say the 2nd amendment is FAR more vague than the 1st. What exactly are 'arms'? Can a nuclear weapon be considered? Does registration of guns really infringe a person's right to bear arms? What does the dependant clause really mean, exactly?

Plenty of questions. Freedom of speech seems pretty clear to me. However, NO RIGHT is absolute. Each has limits.

[MrFun]

Re: Do you like guns or gun control?

Originally posted by Vesayen


Almost all gun control laws are unconstitutional because the point of the second amendment is to let us take out an oppresive federal goverment.

Ah yes -- that cliche myth of average Joe citizen with his Colt revolver being capable of defending himself against a unit of Abram tanks in the event the government becomes repressive.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Obviously regulating how people get arms, prevents them from bearing and keeping them.

You miss one thing. Just because you have a right to do something does not automatically imply you have the ability to do so.

For example, you have the right to private property, but you don't have enough money to buy a house. Does that mean real estate developers are conspiring against you to prevent you from exercising such a right?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Vesayen

The soldiers wont shoot, but it is a moot point, completley unrelated.

Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are gunning us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?