(05-03-2021 03:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 02:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Banging my head against the wall.

You typed: What I'm saying is that you are simply seeking to avoid article 5

I responded: First of all, where have I advocated for an assault weapons ban in this conversation? If you aren't talking about me, perhaps you could change the second bolded sentence.

So were you not talking to me when you typed that? I asked you to clarify so that I wouldn't be accused of accusing you, and one of these stupid circular arguments wasn't going to be started. Alas, no luck there.

What does article 5 have to do with an assault weapons ban? Article 5 is about how you amend the Constitution. Your response was that you are simply seeking to expand the limitations allowed under the Constitution, which is exactly why I am saying you are attempting to avoid article 5.

If you can make the list of exceptions large enough, you can eliminate the ability for someone 'not associated with a militia' from owning a weapon without amending the Constitution.... because 'legal' militias don't really exist anymore.

I'm sorry, but you've actually ADMITTED that you aren't trying to change the Constitution... you're merely trying to get a majority of justices to interpret it differently.

Why are you arguing about 'assault weapons'?

Quote:You seemed to have misread my comment. I didn't say it was REASONABLE to use those weapons, but that they could be used in ways you EXPLICITLY stated they had NO application.

I didn't think I needed to add the word 'legal' to that sentence. Seriously? This is what we've devolved to??

Quote:I said this to make the point that language is important when discussing the issue, since THE crux of the argument is where the line is drawn by the 2nd Amendment on what arms can and cannot be banned or what regulations can/cannot be implemented.

Which is immaterial when you add the obvious word 'legal'.

Another way to say what you've said is that home defense involves killing people, and you can kill people with bombs so bombs are protected... but killing people with bombs, just like booby-trapping your front door is ILLEGAL.

So no... home defense does NOT involve using illegal means (no matter the weapon of choice) to kill someone.

Hammers are legal, right? Did you know that it was (generally) illegal to rig a door such that a hammer could fall on someone?? Same concept. Guns are legal, but you still can't booby trap a door with them (indiscriminate)

Quote:And I've not advocated for the "expansion of the infringement" as you accuse me of

The right to bear arms is not without limitations. Nobody has argued that it is. You are seeking to expand the breadth of those limitations, are you not? Limitations of the right to bear arms by definition are infringements upon our right to bear arms. They are simply 'allowed' infringements.... just as the Constitution says those rights 'shall not be infringed', and then leaves out the implied term... without due process. I think everyone on here would agree that you/your side wants rules to go farther than they currently do. Why you would argue that you don't is beyond me.

Quote:Perhaps why you didn't see challenges to the 2nd Amendment wasn't because there is no ambiguity, but because times and technology has changed and states/the fed didn't feel the need to regulate weapons until the times changed? I don't agree with the logic that a lack of Supreme Court challenges in the early 1800s to laws restricting gun ownership indicates that there is no ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment.

Why 'early' 1800's? I'd say there weren't any until the early 1900's. What's 100 years to a 250 yr old nation??

Quote:For one, that ignores that times change and what may not have been ambiguous at the writing may now be rendered ambiguous by advances in technology (hello email and the 1st amendment).

1) So why are cannons illegal? They aren't remotely 'new' technology
2) the advent of email doesn't change the clear intention of the 1st amendment. It may change the application of rules surrounding it, but it doesn't change the clear intention.

Quote:Second, your premise of the pirate arrest would only be valid if a state/the feds had made a law criminalizing private ownership of cannons. Just because a state/the feds hadn't done that, doesn't mean that they didn't pass such laws because they felt the 2nd Amendment forbade that law. There could easily be other reasons.

So... 200+ years and nobody in any state had one single incident? Funny that, huh??

Quote:Finally, you're wrong about NO 2nd Amendment cases until the 20th century - a very short Google search found cases going back to 1875 at the federal level (and even earlier in regards to states' constitutions).

Pretty obviously, since we're talking specifically about the 2nd amendment with regard to the legal authority for someone to own a gun, even a highly destructive one, without being involved in a militia or showing a 'need' or 'training' or any of the other fancifully imagined limitations your side wants to bring up... that's what I meant.

And if you're talking about Cruikshank, that wasn't at all about limitations to 'the right to bear arms'. It was instead about the Federal constitution, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO the 2nd amendment, applied to the states.


Spin spin spin, deflect deflect deflect.

I'd REALLY appreciate it if you'd stay on subject, which includes applying the general tenor of a conversation to specific words used within it.

I mean be serious... You literally argued that I need to use the word LEGAL when describing allowable uses of weapons under the constitution, as if anywhere in here I'd argued that criminal acts using guns were protected under the 2nd?? That's ridiculous.

No, I am not arguing that you need to use the word LEGAL when describing allowable used of weapons. When did I even type LEGAL? You initially said these items had NO application and I pointed out they do have applications. You then spun to say you mean LEGAL/REASONABLE applications.

When we're talking about defining how far a restriction can legally go, I think the specificity of language is important and fits within the tenor of conversation. You said that "NO civilian application exists" for arms like machine guns, smart bombs, etc. There are plenty of civilian applications that exist, including those outside of self defense (yet that was all you focused on and you seemed piqued that I gave a specific, not self defense example).

The whole point of this was to say that even arms that have civilian applications are able to be regulated in a manner in-line with the 2nd Amendment.

But spin, spin, spin, deflect, deflect, deflect. I'd like you stay on subject too. You've literally either intentionally or unintentionally ignored about half of what I've typed to try and paint a picture of what you'd prefer my position be, than what it actually is.

Obviously these long back and forths aren't productive in the slightest, and you and I both have gotten peeved and I've wasted far too much of my time.

I'll leave with this:

I don't actively support an assault weapons ban, but I am not against one - so please stop ******* telling me that I am for expanding limitations of the 2nd Amendment.

I'm pretty agnostic about it and see both sides of the argument. I've been trying to point out why I see the side of the argument you have admitted you don't get.