Do you support the second amendment?

[Cathoholic]

Spyridon:

You automatically assumed I am both a leftist and want to “disarm” you simply because I support gun control measures.

You are right Spyridon. I DO think that.

.

Spyridon:

I support gun control measures.

.

There are plenty of “gun control measures” out there Spyridon. What you are vying for is incremental disarming of honest law-abiding citizens and I won’t fall for it.

There are so many gun laws now that the experts fight over how many thousands of them there already are.

Yet you implicitly pretend there aren’t any “gun control measures” already in place with comments like: “I support gun control measures.”

.

Spyridon:

Stop watching Alex Jones.

.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t even have a TV. But if I did and I watched Jones, WHY do you feel the need not only to CONTROL what guns people do and do not have, but ALSO you also seem to feel the need to CONTROL what people watch (“Stop watching Alex Jones”)??

.

This is exactly the attitude I am talking about.

To the readers of this thread, this is also EXACTLY the type of brow-beating I warned of earlier too. This is a manipulation technique and amounts to mere name-calling without substance.

Gun-controllers arguments are without merit or they ignore the WHOLE picture (which is WHY gun-grabbers will never initiate a discussion about rogue Governments killing their own citizens), so they resort to name calling that is imaginary and meaningless in fact, but heavy on emotion (“Stop watching Alex Jones”).

Gun-grabbers don’t learn from ALL of history. (Just selective parts)

Again, gun-grabbers never initiate a discussion of rogue Governments and THEIR role in gun abuse. (If they did, it would work against their “politics”. Why cite facts when you are wedded to a political view that only selectively accepts facts?)

Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900
by R. J. Rummel

. . . . . In Death by Government, Rummel does not aim to describe democide itself, but to determine its nature and scope in order to test the theory that democracies are inherently nonviolent.

Rummel discusses genocide in China, Nazi Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. He also writes about . . . .
. . . The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. Thus, as Rummel says, “The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.”

Death by Government is a compelling look at the horrors that occur in modern societies. It depicts how democide has been very much a part of human history. Among other examples, the book includes the massacre of Europeans during the Thirty Years’ War, the relatively unknown genocide of the French Revolution, and the slaughtering of American Indians by colonists in the New World.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Govern...ie=UTF8&qid=1508915471&sr=1-1&keywords=Rummel

(Bold mine)

 

[Cathoholic]

Spyridon. A "vociferous Constitutionalist” you are NOT.

Spyridon. Regarding an “assault rifle” you said . . . “we’re talking about common knowledge.”
.

If you were investigating what you’ve said for example, you would know that California has made MANY additions to what they defined (and re-defined, and re-defined, and re-defined) as an “assault rifle”.

The fact is, nobody knows what an “assault rifle” is anymore due to frequent re-definitions by gun-grabbers. It doesn’t matter what YOU think an assault rifle is or isn’t, because the Government doesn’t base these definitions upon “Spyridon’s opinion”.

And you evidently didn’t even know YOUR OWN definition of an “assault rifle” as JonNC had to tell you . . .

.

An AR-15 is a civilian rifle, a modern sporting rifle, not an assault weapon. It is not selectable. It cannot fire in 3 round bursts or fully automatic.

.

Your response?

.

?You are right Jon. I made a mistake?

.

No!

Your response? (Triangulating away from your mistake instead of admitting it)

.

I understand the technical terminology.
But the common sense view is this . . .

If you understood the “technical terminology” HOW could you make such a mistake?

Once again pretending to accept your own definition of an “assault rifle” . . . then CHANGING the definition.

And this is exactly what occurs with gun-grabbers “definitions” of other aspects of firearms too (a 17 round standard capacity magazine morphs into a “high capacity magazine”. Then a ten round magazine morphs into a “high capacity magazine” as they try to RE-DEFINE a standard capacity magazine at SEVEN rounds).

When THEY want to control YOUR guns and YOUR gun RIGHTS a little more, other “definitions” get changed too . . . yet again and again.

And when it does get changed (as has happened FREQUENTLY), these same gun-grabbers will NOT be there to help you regain the rights you lost. They will not speak up politically for your rights that have been whittled away. They do NOT fully support the Constitution (even though invariably they pretend to and convinced themselves they do).

 

[Vonsalza]

It seems when emotions get involved, rationale flies out the door.

“Gun grabbers”?

“Fully supporting the constitution”?

Good grief. Your right to firearms is limited. This is an inarguable fact. No M60s for you or me.

Some of us think that the awesome power contained in a detachable-mag-fed semi-auto weapon originally designed for war should be a difficult (though not impossible) thing for a man to obtain. Because the more prolific something is, the greater the odds of some moron actually using it.

 

[upant]

Your right to firearms is limited. This is an inarguable fact.

if it was inarguable there would be no court cases in the works.

everything is arguable

just because there is a law doesn’t mean the law is constitutional.

even settled law by the scotus can be overturned as someone noted above.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Your right to firearms is limited. This is an inarguable fact.

if it was inarguable there would be no court cases in the works.

everything is arguable

just because there is a law doesn’t mean the law is constitutional.

even settled law by the scotus can be overturned as someone noted above.

Any cases pending to give you access to tanks or nukes?

I didn’t think so…

 

[upant]

according to this atf spokesperson you can own one.

the problem as always with ideal purchases is ony the elite can usually afford it and get the paperwork approved.

…there are several hundred to 1,000 private tank owners in the U.S.
quora.com (ymmv)

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, yes, totally legal. And, technically. Right now, ArmsList will put you in touch with a dealer selling a “Fully Operational Main Battle Tank with 120mm Live Cannon.” … The main gun is registered as a Destructive Device with the ATF and comes with 10 projectiles (dailydot)

“If they’re operational, you can register those actual cannons [as an NFA weapon],” Russ Morrison, a spokesman for the ATF, told the Daily Dot. “And if they’re sold, they’d have to go through a transfer to make sure everything’s OK, and have it registered, as well.”

 

[Vonsalza]

according to this atf spokesperson you can own one.

Sure, if you’re willing to submit to the checks and the paperwork for destructive devices, there are all sorts of things one can own that are not available to the general public.

In all honesty, if you consider this reasonable, then I’m satisfied. Let’s just apply something similar to “civilian” model ARs and AKs (and the like).

 

[upant]

In all honesty, if you consider this reasonable, then I’m satisfied. Let’s just apply something similar to “civilian” model ARs and AKs (and the like).

which killer that used an ar would it have stopped?

 

[FiveLinden]

With respect, I am wondering if there is an element of idolatry in the attitudes of some to the constitution of the US, the second amendment, and guns themselves. The irrationality of the rejection of the obvious safety concerns, the rejection of the evidence easily found from around the world and the elements of obsession around the possession of weapons all seem to point to this.

 

[JonNC]

There are plenty of “gun control measures” out there Spyridon. What you are vying for is incremental disarming of honest law-abiding citizens and I won’t fall for it.

It is interesting that when the idea of targeting measures and statutes at criminals instead of the law abiding is brought up, there isn’t much response to that be the proponents of further gun restrictions on civilians.
It is indeed, telling, as to the goals of some.

 

[JonNC]

With respect, I am wondering if there is an element of idolatry in the attitudes of some to the constitution of the US, the second amendment, and guns themselves.

Oh, nonsense.

Do you think those in the media practice idolatry in their defense of a free press, or the tools thereof?
Is it idolatry to demand that due process be adhered to?
How about the demand that cruel and unusual punishment not be used?
Was it idolatry when Father Lori and LCMS President Harrison sat in front of Congress to defend the right of religious freed exercise in response to the HHS Mandate?

It isn’t idolatry to insist that one’s rights not be infringed.

The irrationality of the rejection of the obvious safety concerns, the rejection of the evidence easily found from around the world and the elements of obsession around the possession of weapons all seem to point to this.

The evidence from around the world is that the real danger from firearms is the danger government poses. One need only look at the twentieth century to see that. Holocaust, genocide, Killing Fields, Cultural Revolution, Kristallnacht. Want more?
Who were the perpetrators? Civilians with guns? No! Socialists, primarily. Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Che. Want more?
Ever notice how gun bans never include government?

Yeah, so it is irrational, and in some cases suicidal, for law abiding civilians to give up their weapons.

 

[Vonsalza]

FiveLinden:

With respect, I am wondering if there is an element of idolatry in the attitudes of some to the constitution of the US, the second amendment, and guns themselves.

Oh, nonsense.

The lance that strikes truest hurts the worst.

 

[Vonsalza]

Ever notice how gun bans never include government?

Not completely true in effect.

British bobbys hardly ever “pack heat”.

 

[JonNC]

The lance that strikes truest hurts the worst.

Or, a truly nonsensical comment needs to be labeled such.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The lance that strikes truest hurts the worst.

Or, a truly nonsensical comment needs to be labeled such.

I didn’t think it was so nonsensical.

It strikes me as funny that balding, greying and pudgy middle-aged men with their shiny-fired-thrice discount ARs somehow think they have a real shot against a government with Abrams tanks and Apache copters. THAT’S what so nonsensical.

It’s SO irrationally driven…

Your vote is and will forever be the far more effective weapon against tyranny.

 

[JonNC]

Assault rifles are medium caliber like 5.56 and 7.62, not .22LR.

Oh, so it is function when you want to set a definition.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Mossberg 715 Tactical Semi Auto Rifle .22 LR

Paraphrasing you!
"Walk down Main St with an Mossberg 715 Tactical Semi Auto Rifle .22 LR
and ask 100 people what type of weapon you’re carrying.

I bet at least 90 out of 100 will say “an assault rifle.” I guarentee less than 10 will say “why, that’s a modern sporting rifle, just a .22LR. "

What it looks like doesn’t matter. Function does. If it is semi-auto, it is not an assult weapon.

 

[JonNC]

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

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

 

[upant]

The irrationality of the rejection of the obvious safety concerns, the rejection of the evidence easily found from around the world and the elements of obsession around the possession of weapons all seem to point to this.

with 14,000 laws on the book why should a sane person expect the next one to be the saving grace? why do you think one more will do the trick?

australia has more guns now than before the ban, many of them smuggled in. check the gun issues in melbourne australia.

london is more dangerous than new york. their violent crime rate is worse than the us.

it isn’t idolatry it is common sense.

 

[FiveLinden]

with 14,000 laws on the book why should a sane person expect the next one to be the saving grace? why do you think one more will do the trick?

australia has more guns now than before the ban, many of them smuggled in. check the gun issues in melbourne australia.

london is more dangerous than new york. their violent crime rate is worse than the us.

it isn’t idolatry it is common sense.

Guns result in gun crime. They also result in suicide and accidents.Every house with a gun in it is more dangerous that a house without. That is because there are no accidental shootings in houses without guns. Or suicides by gun. The twisting of the argument to one of crime away from one of safety results in bad policy driven by fear.

 

[upant]

upant:

with 14,000 laws on the book why should a sane person expect the next one to be the saving grace? why do you think one more will do the trick?

australia has more guns now than before the ban, many of them smuggled in. check the gun issues in melbourne australia.

london is more dangerous than new york. their violent crime rate is worse than the us.

it isn’t idolatry it is common sense.

Guns result in gun crime. They also result in suicide and accidents.Every house with a gun in it is more dangerous that a house without. That is because there are no accidental shootings in houses without guns. Or suicides by gun. The twisting of the argument to one of crime away from one of safety results in bad policy driven by fear.

so i take it you prefer a gun ban?