The "bearing arms" debate...

[oldandslow]

Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...

Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.

Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."

I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?

So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?

Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?

I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."

The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.

Just my 2 cents.

[BucEyedPea]

[quote=cosmo20002;9305775]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

'Cept I didn't just focus on "keep" throughout.

OK



Agree to disagree on what? My own stand? I asked you a straightforward question. You've responded with your typical bullshit.

No, you're just Alinksky'ing things. And you have nothing to respond with except that. You lost.

You also added "personal" and "private." Your question was the bullshit.

[BucEyedPea]

"You this. You that...../cosmos]

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Nope. I did not. There's no mention of any adjective of "personal" or "private" just a "right to "bear" and "keep." You narrowed it down when the Framers didn't do that. Of course, it allows private and personal too. I explained how the nukes apply. You are incapable of understanding what I posted.

I really can't argue that. My question could have been answered with a "Yes" or "No." At one point I thought you were clearly saying "yes", then you questioned whether storage safety was a factor and that militias should have them. I didn't see the part in the 2nd that said "unless storage safety is a factor," but I guess you see it.
Your long and winding babbling, I can't follow.

[cosmo20002]

[quote=BucEyedPea;9305784]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

No, you're just Alinksky'ing things. And you have nothing to respond with except that. You lost.

You also added "personal" and "private." Your question was the bullshit.

Yeah, the QUESTION was BS.

Maybe someone else can fish a simple answer from you, I give up.

[2bikemike]

A lot of times you hear the argument " The founding fathers did not anticipate Fully automatic, semi automatic, assault rifles or whatever"

To me that is an assinine argument. Looking at the bill of rights that our founding fathers put forth most were written to protect the people from the Govt. Our founding fathers never anticipated the Govt. having those weapons either.

Was a citizen owning cannons frowned upon back in those early days of our new found freedom? I have never heard one way or another. To me thats an interesting thought. I will have to do some research on that.

Now fast forward to today. Do I think a citizen should own Nukes. Of course not. Should a citizen be able to own an RPG? it certainly would be a blast no pun intended. No I don't think we should own RPG's

Now lets break it down to rifles. Should a citizen be allowed to have a fully automatic rifle? Having spent some time behind a few, I would certainly love to have one. Could I afford to feed it? Probably not. They are fun to shoot. But in the end I think we are where we should be on the fully automatics.

In the end we are at the line I am not willing to compromise on. Further laws will do nothing to end violence or prevent tragedies. The focus needs to shift from what to why. Lets focus more on why these behaviors occur and less on what tool was used to inflict the violence.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

A lot of times you hear the argument " The founding fathers did not anticipate Fully automatic, semi automatic, assault rifles or whatever"

I'm certain that they did anticipate that. These were not stupid men.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

Now fast forward to today. Do I think a citizen should own Nukes. Of course not.

The idea of owning private nukes, as opposed to keeping them collectively as a militia, is a hypothetical—one that would be barred due to cost, as mentioned earlier. So a ridiculous question gets an equally ridiculous answer. However, it can be defended strictly using the context of the original Convention's debates, quotes by Framers and final wording with understood definitions if one wants to engage in the hypothetical.

Outside of that, I see it much like Switzerland who has bombs and planes inside mountains that their citizens can take to as needed. They don't have nuclear weapons though. They do have nuclear power.

The only other thing I can see is any conflict with other rights such as nuclear waste, pollution and the amount of destruction that can occur with an accident.

[frazod]

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

The problem is wacko's on drugs that induce psychotic episodes of violence and suicide.

It makes me wonder why there are so many suicides in the military. Is it the prescription meds?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Yeah, the QUESTION was BS.

Maybe someone else can fish a simple answer from you, I give up.

Yeah, you needing a simple "yes" or "no" answer doesn't apply because it can't be done using your simple-minded two-valued logic.
You're just trying to frame the debate in order to score an automatic win but which disallows looking at it thoroughly. Or as if there is not an answer between the two extremes.

You made a ridiculous hypothetical unlikely to happen. As stated earlier cost aka markets would make it prohibitive.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

It makes me wonder why there are so many suicides in the military. Is it the prescription meds?

To my knowledge prescription meds are used but I don't know if they're all due to that. Or if there is mental trauma from war first and then they get them. I read amphetamines have been given to pilots in the SF before their bombing raids. I read that terrorist camps use to to de-sensitize them to killing themselves and others.

I'd have to research it more.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by frazod

Gawd! What a smug, self-righteous snobby Brit.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

It makes me wonder why there are so many suicides in the military. Is it the prescription meds?

I did a google and found this:

Medicating the military
Use of psychiatric drugs has spiked; concerns surface about suicide, other dangers

At least one in six service members is on some form of psychiatric drug.

And many troops are taking more than one kind, mixing several pills in daily “cocktails” — for example, an antidepressant with an antipsychotic to prevent nightmares, plus an anti-epileptic to reduce headaches — despite minimal clinical research testing such combinations.

The drugs come with serious side effects: They can impair motor skills, reduce reaction times and generally make a war fighter less effective. Some double the risk for suicide, prompting doctors — and Congress — to question whether these drugs are connected to the rising rate of military suicides.

“It’s really a large-scale experiment. We are experimenting with changing people’s cognition and behavior,” said Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist.

A Military Times investigation of electronic records obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency shows DLA spent $1.1 billion on common psychiatric and pain medications from 2001 to 2009. It also shows that use of psychiatric medications has increased dramatically — about 76 percent overall, with some drug types more than doubling — since the start of the current wars.

More here including other links to meds and suicides:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0...drugs_031710w/

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

A lot of times you hear the argument " The founding fathers did not anticipate Fully automatic, semi automatic, assault rifles or whatever"

To me that is an assinine argument. Looking at the bill of rights that our founding fathers put forth most were written to protect the people from the Govt. Our founding fathers never anticipated the Govt. having those weapons either.

Now fast forward to today. Do I think a citizen should own Nukes. Of course not. Should a citizen be able to own an RPG? it certainly would be a blast no pun intended. No I don't think we should own RPG's

You say you don't think people "should" own nukes or RPGs. But the issue is the RIGHT to own them, not whether it is a good idea.

If the purpose of the 2nd was to protect from the government, and the govt has those types of weapons, then how does one argue that the 2nd Am doesn't guarantee a right to those same weapons?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Yeah, you needing a simple "yes" or "no" answer doesn't apply because it can't be done using your simple-minded two-valued logic.
You're just trying to frame the debate in order to score an automatic win but which disallows looking at it thoroughly. Or as if there is not an answer between the two extremes.

You made a ridiculous hypothetical unlikely to happen. As stated earlier cost aka markets would make it prohibitive.

Complete cop-out. First, people use hypotheticals all the time for analysis of any number of things. Second, it is not cost-prohibitive. It wouldn't cost billions to make a crude but useful nuclear weapon.