"The right to bear arms"... where does this limit begin?

[pcosmar]

All you're saying this time. Earlier you said ARs.

And actually,, for the sick fucks that want to kill massively.. there are biologic weapons.

effectively used since at least the middle ages.

 

[FSU63]

And actually,, for the sick fucks that want to kill massively.. there are biologic weapons.

effectively used since at least the middle ages.

Yeah, that's true.

Drake is getting all into who knows what, when all I'm saying is that these mass murderers would be more effective with better weapons.

 

[pcosmar]

Yeah, that's true.

Drake is getting all into who knows what, when all I'm saying is that these mass murderers would be more effective with better weapons.

would rather that mind control drugs used to create them were more tightly regulated.
And those responsible,, be prosecuted.

But that is another issue.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, that's true.

Drake is getting all into who knows what, when all I'm saying is that these mass murderers would be more effective with better weapons.

Fine. But the context of the thread is the second amendment. The Piers Morgans of the world are pushing the meme that ARs are more effective for mass killings than handguns and/or legal stuff like gasoline. If you disagree with Piers and just accidentally said ARs then fine.

 

[FSU63]

Fine. But the context of the thread is the second amendment. The Piers Morgans of the world are pushing the meme that ARs are more effective for mass killings than handguns and/or legal stuff like gasoline. If you disagree with Piers and just accidentally said ARs then fine.

ARs ARE more effective. That doesn't mean I think we should ban ARs. But I think bombs are pushing it, realistically. Yes, the Second Amendment is very clear in saying that it shall NOT be infringed, but bombs aren't like guns. When everyone has guns, gun crimes are less likely to occur, and if they do, they are quickly suppressed. When a bombing happens, others having the ability to possess bombs won't stop them.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How exactly does that work? How is it that morality cannot exist without God?

Where is your proof that God exists or that it's "laws" exist?

Absent God, all moral standards/rules/etc are completely arbitrary.

 

[Christian Liberty]

erowe1 and HB are illustrating why I just try to preach the gospel to unbelievers, and try not to waste my time having political debates with them, in general. Without God, morality is a meaningless fiction.

 

[pcosmar]

ARs ARE more effective. That doesn't mean I think we should ban ARs. But I think bombs are pushing it, realistically. Yes, the Second Amendment is very clear in saying that it shall NOT be infringed, but bombs aren't like guns. When everyone has guns, gun crimes are less likely to occur, and if they do, they are quickly suppressed. When a bombing happens, others having the ability to possess bombs won't stop them.

Well you do raise an issue. The 2nd amendment was referring to arms, in the context of Militia (Armed population,, as opposed to military).

The militia is defensive. and this is a self defense/community defense issue.

Bombs however are not a defensive weapon,, and are a very poor and indiscriminate weapon at best. Even on the battlefield.

Criminal use of any weapon needs to be addressed specifically, based on the crime.. and not on the means or tool used in the crime.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Killing people is not hard. They are relatively fragile. Virtually everyone has numerous opportunities on a daily basis to kill multiple people with little effort. But we don't. You cannot make the world safe from killers no matter what you do. The best you can do is to try to not make so many killers and try to sequester those that you can identify.

This is a great post. I couldn't say the first four lines much better. People are, in one sense, vulnerable 24 hours per day.

This post is points out why some gun control arguments are totally silly. It illustrates better than just about anything else how some gun control advocates don't give the slightest thought to their arguments. It shows how some of the points in this thread are impractical.

It also does not take a psychopath to figure out the most effective means of doing in a lot of people. Victim numbers of the most prolific serial killers dwarf the numbers of school shooters.

 

[FSU63]

erowe1 and HB are illustrating why I just try to preach the gospel to unbelievers, and try not to waste my time having political debates with them, in general. Without God, morality is a meaningless fiction.

Not meaningless, just subjective. However, much like I said in another thread about how I feel it's pointless arguing about global warming, I think it's pointless to argue about religion. Why? Because I'm an apatheist (though i even despise having to be labeled). I don't believe there is a God, and I don't care whether there actually is or not, as it wouldn't affect the way I live my life. if there is a God, I wouldn't feel that it was a just god that deserved to be worshipped. Even if it was a just god, I still would not worship it, as I put no one person or thing above (or below) me.

Well you do raise an issue. The 2nd amendment was referring to arms, in the context of Militia (Armed population,, as opposed to military).

The militia is defensive. and this is a self defense/community defense issue.

Bombs however are not a defensive weapon,, and are a very poor and indiscriminate weapon at best. Even on the battlefield.

Criminal use of any weapon needs to be addressed specifically, based on the crime.. and not on the means or tool used in the crime.

Good point. Excellent explanation.

 

[Czolgosz]

No limits.

 

[FSU63]

And I will say that I don't really think it matters where it ends, honestly. Americans are too dumb and ignorant and most don't even recognize the growing problem of government. The Second Amendment is meant to protect us from tyranny, but that only works if people are actually willing to take action and use those guns. At this point in time, even if we removed ALL restrictions on ALL weapons, the government could still wipe this country clean very quickly. We are NOT protected from tyranny, since we have allowed it to flourish for far too long.

 

[erowe1]

Not meaningless, just subjective.

If moral laws really exist (and "exist" is the word both you and I used), then wouldn't that make them objective?

If they're subjective, then they're just figments of people's imaginations, not things that really exist.

 

[XNavyNuke]

The militia is defensive. and this is a self defense/community defense issue.

Bombs however are not a defensive weapon,, and are a very poor and indiscriminate weapon at best. Even on the battlefield.

Which is why the 11th Regiment of Connecticut Militia augmented themselves with a grenadier company in 1774.

When dealing with an opponent who is acting indiscrimately, it's best to have your own big, burly bomb hurlers against earthworks.

XNN

 

[EBounding]

If the police can have it the people should have it.

 

[jtstellar]

when was the last time criminals slaughtered millions of people through war and starvation? so some people are less worried about police corruption like mexico and government getting too powerful with all the spying agencies behind them and armored trucks, but rather some criminal off the street? for things like nukes that does indiscriminate killing, you might not need the citizenry to have it since if government launches it, the officials themselves will have committed suicide, but for weaponry that is not self-inflicting and thus isolates the aggressor from threat during use, there needs to be a counter force and there's no reason it shouldn't circulate

 

[LibForestPaul]

This makes me wonder as well. While I certainly wouldn't mind people walking around with assault rifles, it would be a TERRIBLE idea to have people walking around with rocket launchers and nukes.

It would be terrible for people to walk around with knifes and hand grenades, see what I did there. rocket lauchers is no where near a nuke, keep the propaganda less obvious

 

[LibForestPaul]

And I will say that I don't really think it matters where it ends, honestly. Americans are too dumb and ignorant and most don't even recognize the growing problem of government. The Second Amendment is meant to protect us from tyranny, but that only works if people are actually willing to take action and use those guns. At this point in time, even if we removed ALL restrictions on ALL weapons, the government could still wipe this country clean very quickly. We are NOT protected from tyranny, since we have allowed it to flourish for far too long.

Indeed. The American people will do anything to be a grayman. All praying and hoping they can go about their daily lives unnoticed and undeterred by those whos sole job is to terrorize them and their family.

 

[FSU63]

It would be terrible for people to walk around with knifes and hand grenades, see what I did there. rocket lauchers is no where near a nuke, keep the propaganda less obvious

Why is everything deemed "propaganda" by libertarians? I don't get it. I'm all for less gun control, but do you REALLY want people walking around with grenade launchers?

 

[erowe1]

do you REALLY want people walking around with grenade launchers?

I don't.

But I also don't condone using violence to stop them from doing that. Not only would that be immoral, but it would make the problem worse, not better.