Do you support the second amendment?

[Vonsalza]

LeafByNiggle:

Not a very good or practical gun.

would a shotgun be practical?

but it’s only a single shot!

only limited by how many you can carry

as always ymmv

And, in fairness;

Homemade 12 Gauge Blows Up in Hands

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

JonNC:

Vonsalza:

JonNC:

Vonsalza:

It strikes me as funny that balding, greying and pudgy middle-aged men

Some more profiling here? First the poor, now this one?

Hit a little close to home, apparently.

It has been the consistent history of progressives to judge people by their appearance.
I’m not surprised

It’s been the consistent history of people to judge by appearance. And I think we most definitely see that among many conservatives today. Oh most definitely.

Fair enough, but KKK, BLM, the eugenics/racist Planned Parenthood all progressive movements. But in our discussion, Von, I’m not the one who characterized people by race, gender, or economic status. I’m not the one who stated that rights ought to be restricted on these grounds.

KKK is progressive, per you?

Kinda lets us know who we’re dealing with, here…

But to your point, demographics is a useful study. We find most crime is committed by folks who are impoverished. If we made guns more expensive to obtain, we’d see fewer poor folks with fewer guns. Just like we presently see them with fewer BMWs and three story brick federals…

 

[Cathoholic]

I mentioned the need for HONESTY (In Post 1309).

We have a natural right NOT to be lied to (even when founding a country).

I want everybody to notice LeafbyNiggles “rebuttal” of that (In Post 1310).

LeafbyNiggle:

This is neither approved nor disapproved by Catholic teaching.

.
Please remember the mindset of people like this who want to control YOUR rights.

Honesty is an “optional” item to many of them.

Tuck that away in your mind and never forget that when they are promising citizens the proverbial moon.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I mentioned the need for HONESTY. We have a natural right NOT to be lied to.

You mentioned honesty and natural law, but you did not apply them properly. In the context of the 2nd amendment debate, repealing the second amendment is not an instance of being lied to. The men who made the promise to pass the second amendment are all dead. They did not lie to you. Then men who would repeal the second amendment never promised not to do so. So they did not lie to you. Therefore there is no lying involved if we should decide to amend the constitution further to revoke the second amendment. And Church teaching is fine with that.

Honesty is an “optional” item to many of them.

Having guns is an optional item when discussing natural law, which we were.

 

[Cathoholic]

In the context of the 2nd amendment debate, repealing the second amendment is not an instance of being lied to.

This is yet another straw-man.

Why?

Because I’very already acknowledged that if people want they can amend the Constitution.

(Lots of luck trying to get two thirds of Congress AND 75% ratification by the states though. Fortunately, THAT won’t happen in my opinion.)

But what we do NOT have the power to do (it doesn’t matter if you are in Congress, a judge, or a President), is to pretend to make laws that jettison parts of the Constitution.

And of course we’ve seen such usurpation in the past (fortunately the Supreme Court has ruled against many of these illicit “laws”, but with freedom, vigilance is to be maintained against such infringements).

 

[Vonsalza]

But what we do NOT have the power to do (it doesn’t matter if you are in Congress, a judge, or a President), is to pretend to make laws that jettison parts of the Constitution.

Amen. Bravo. Huzzah!

But what you’re keenly aware of, I’m sure, is that documents are subject to interpretation. SCOTUS interprets the constitution just like the Church interprets our sacred writings.

YOUR interpretation insists that:
“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”

-ALSO means-

“Military weapons converted into exclusively semi-automatic actions should be commonly available to the public.”

That’s quite an interpretive jump; conceding that we’ve already effectively banned the ownership of military rifles that are still fully automatic.

---

Your point isn’t immutable truth; it’s one interpretation from one man who doesn’t even sit in the chair of judgement on the matter.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vonsalza:

YOUR interpretation insists that:

“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”

As I said . . .

.

. . . fortunately the Supreme Court has ruled against many of these illicit “laws”, but with freedom, vigilance is to be maintained against such infringements.

.
People who support the Constitution (ALL of it) are maintaining such vigilance.

Gun-grabbers on the other hand are committing a self-destructive violation of PRINCIPLES.

.

Vonsalza:

.

Amen. Bravo. Huzzah!

.

This is just another act of contempt and I probably won’t address it further (except I DO want citizens who love our country and our Constitution to note the all-too-frequent attitude of contempt expressed against good honest law-abiding hard-working citizens of the country who hold up the Constitution).

 

[Vonsalza]

Gun-grabbers on the other hand are committing a self-destructive violation of PRINCIPLES.

As was partially the point above; we may value different things.

These “gun-grabbers” feel that a magazine-fed semi-auto weapon is too much power to readily and accessibly place into one man’s hands. It empowers him to exercise the ultimate tyranny against so many people; the destructive rogue can be too destructive because of it.

Giving that man access to those firearms is a violation of their PRINCIPLES.

 

[JonNC]

KKK is progressive, per you?

Kinda lets us know who we’re dealing with, here…

Oh, please. Look into that icon of the progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson. How about Margaret Sanger.

 

[JonNC]

These “gun-grabbers” feel that a magazine-fed semi-auto weapon is too much power to readily and accessibly place into one man’s hands. It empowers him to exercise the ultimate tyranny against so many people; the destructive rogue can be too destructive because of it.

How about in the hands of the military? Are you calling for the disarmament of all nations worldwide?
Or just the US?
Or just American civilians?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

These “gun-grabbers” feel that a magazine-fed semi-auto weapon is too much power to readily and accessibly place into one man’s hands. It empowers him to exercise the ultimate tyranny against so many people; the destructive rogue can be too destructive because of it.

How about in the hands of the military? Are you calling for the disarmament of all nations worldwide?
Or just the US?
Or just American civilians?

That is some FIERCE goal-post widening!

Genuinely impressive.

 

[JonNC]

That is some FIERCE goal-post widening!

Genuinely impressive.

Really?
You wrote:

These “gun-grabbers” feel that a magazine-fed semi-auto weapon is too much power to readily and accessibly place into one man’s hands. It empowers him to exercise the ultimate tyranny against so many people; the destructive rogue can be too destructive because of it.

Answer the question for once: does that include a member of the armed forces, or do you only mean a man who is not a soldier or law enforcement officer?
It is a simple question.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vonsalza:

These “gun-grabbers” feel that a magazine-fed semi-auto weapon is too much power to readily and accessibly place into one man’s hands.

.

Really?

Then show me where you’ve called for disarmament of Governments, police, military, guards for politicians, etc.

No Vonsalza. You by your own words, want to disarm the good law-abiding honest citizens.

And your reasoning is due to the bad guys.

You want to attack the good guys, because of the bad guys.

And as I said, you don’t attack Cost Rica, because of aggression from North Korea.

Likewise you do not “infringe” upon the good guys, because of what the bad guys do.

 

[JonNC]

You want to attack the good guys, because of the bad guys.

He’s attacked the poor because of bad guys. He’s attacked law abiding Americans of all kinds.

It is quite remarkable

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

That is some FIERCE goal-post widening!

Genuinely impressive.

Really?
You wrote:

These “gun-grabbers” feel that a magazine-fed semi-auto weapon is too much power to readily and accessibly place into one man’s hands. It empowers him to exercise the ultimate tyranny against so many people; the destructive rogue can be too destructive because of it.

Answer the question for once: does that include a member of the armed forces, or do you only mean a man who is not a soldier or law enforcement officer?
It is a simple question.

It includes all men (and women). These weapons should not be easily obtainable. Period.

In order to be issued their weapons, law enforcement and soldiers have to do quite a bit more than not commit a felony and manage cough up $500. Moreover they also don’t have the benefit of being relatively anonymous. And since they’re obviously working people, their exposure to the low-income situations that often preempt gun crime is substantially lower.

If everyone had to go through the same vetting as police and soldiers in order to be issued firearms that would, like soldiers and police, be traceable to them specifically -AND- somehow certify that they at least earn a suitable living like those professionals do (which is effectively what a permit system does), I’d be very satisfied.

I don’t personally call for disarmament or banning.

I call for making them difficult to obtain. Police and military do quite a bit to be issued their weapons.

 

[LilyM]

Most illegal drugs, common as they may be, are still way WAY harder to get than legal ones such as tobacco and alcohol.

 

[JonNC]

So, in short, you believe that only government should have arms. You don’t really believe in banning guns, only banning guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Of course, you want yo start with the poor, but incremental diminishing of rights has been
Ongoing since Wilson himself led the movement.
Sounds like most every socialist tyrant of the last century.

 

[Vonsalza]

So, in short, you believe that only government should have arms. You don’t really believe in banning guns, only banning guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

No. I believe exactly what I said.

And its a darn good argument because your only reply is to falsely-reduce it to something different that you’re comfortable dismissing with a well-rehearsed, canned reply.

And everyone can see that.

Of course, you want yo start with the poor, but incremental diminishing of rights has been
Ongoing since Wilson himself led the movement.

And there’s the slippery slope fallacy you use…

Sounds like most every socialist tyrant of the last century.

And there’s the ad hominem fallacy.

---

No. It’s a good argument. So good that your replies to it are literally nothing but fallacies.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In the context of the 2nd amendment debate, repealing the second amendment is not an instance of being lied to.

Thanks for clarifying that what you are really objecting to was having the 2nd amendment at the same time that we ignore it. I thought the question of the thread was whether we support the 2nd amendment in a debate over repealing vs not repealing. I didn’t think anyone was suggesting that we keep it but still violate it. Anyway, there is a real question as to which forms of gun control are consistent with the 2nd amendment as it is currently interpreted by the latest Heller decision.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If we made guns more expensive to obtain, we’d see fewer poor folks with fewer guns.

You would have less law-abiding poor people get a firearm.