Founders and Framers on the People's Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[Ferrumitzal]

Yea you do, you just keep talking about how the bureaucracy of law in a civilized society is completely pointless because criminals never follow laws and no law has ever stopped any crime.

Again with the reading comprehension problems! I said that criminals don't follow laws (fact) and that no law has ever stopped a criminal (again, fact). That doesn't mean that you don't prosecute a criminal after you catch them, dumbass.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the laws on the books are being ignored. How is a law supposed to do anything if it's never used? How can you say that we need more laws or better laws if you've never tried the laws that you already have?

The laws are written to be unenforceable on purpose, they are on the books just to exist and serve no real purpose other than to placate the left and entertain the right. We need to restructure the system because it's fucking broken beyond repair as made clearly evident by the glaring deficiency that is public security in the US of A.

You've never shown how the laws on the books are unenforceable. Yes, they aren't being applied, but that just means there's willful neglect of duties, and not that the laws cannot be enforced.

If that were the case, dumbass, the only solution is all out civil war to remove the entire top of the food chain that makes these laws. You're saying that the political elites over the last hundred years have intentionally instituted laws that they new wouldn't work and couldn't be enforced.... but you want them to do something else? How could you ever trust them to do it right?

I'm all for enforceable laws. I support punishing criminals at every step. I support the death penalty. But I'm not dumb enough to believe that the same people that made the mess can be relied upon to clean up the mess when the mess works in their favor.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Again with the....

Well fuck it I guess just give the fuck up then since there is zero problems going on.....what's the point right?

I support the death penalty.

Why?

 

[Skiddles2014]

Again with the reading comprehension problems! I said that criminals don't follow laws (fact) and that no law has ever stopped a criminal (again, fact).

You conveniently ignore the fact that the laws on the books are being ignored. How is a law supposed to do anything if it's never used? How can you say that we need more laws or better laws if you've never tried the laws that you already have?



You've never shown how the laws on the books are unenforceable. Yes, they aren't being applied, but that just means there's willful neglect of duties, and not that the laws cannot be enforced.

If that were the case, dumbass, the only solution is all out civil war to remove the entire top of the food chain that makes these laws. You're saying that the political elites over the last hundred years have intentionally instituted laws that they new wouldn't work and couldn't be enforced.... but you want them to do something else? How could you ever trust them to do it right?

I'm all for enforceable laws. I support punishing criminals at every step. I support the death penalty. But I'm not dumb enough to believe that the same people that made the mess can be relied upon to clean up the mess when the mess works in their favor.

o rly now

 

[Ferrumitzal]

o rly now

Yea, "rly". Criminals break laws. You can't show one instance where a law stopped someone from doing something they wanted to do. How long has murder been illegal? Weed? Speeding?

If you aren't inclined to break a law, you're not a criminal. There are millions of people around the world that go about their lives without breaking any substantive laws.... because they just aren't interested in doing that. It's easy to not murder or buy meth because I'm not interested in either of those things. I don't need a law to tell me not to, and I don't do it because I'm afraid of being prosecuted for it. I just don't do it.

Laws exist to create a framework through which you can prosecute someone after they have committed a crime.

You will always have criminals in any society. All you can hope to do is minimize their numbers and the impact they have on normal society.

 

[Skiddles2014]

Yea, "rly". Criminals break laws. You can't show one instance where a law stopped someone from doing something they wanted to do. How long has murder been illegal? Weed? Speeding?

If you aren't inclined to break a law, you're not a criminal. There are millions of people around the world that go about their lives without breaking any substantive laws.... because they just aren't interested in doing that. It's easy to not murder or buy meth because I'm not interested in either of those things. I don't need a law to tell me not to, and I don't do it because I'm afraid of being prosecuted for it. I just don't do it.

Laws exist to create a framework through which you can prosecute someone after they have committed a crime.

You will always have criminals in any society. All you can hope to do is minimize their numbers and the impact they have on normal society.

That's just stupid-logic.

Now shut the fuck up you stupid little n00b.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

So you prove my point, idiot.

Laws don't stop people from breaking them. They are words on paper. Criminals break laws every day. How hard is that for you to understand?

 

[cjh]

So you prove my point, idiot.

Laws don't stop people from breaking them. They are words on paper. Criminals break laws every day. How hard is that for you to understand?

And yet we have them.

Obviously they are not some sort of magic talisman, or else we would not try criminals and put them in jail.

Tell me how many words have taken out a room full of school children?

 

[islandman]

So you prove my point, idiot.

Laws don't stop people from breaking them. They are words on paper. Criminals break laws every day. How hard is that for you to understand?

Of course they don't. Instead, they're a deterrent to the majority of people. For those who do break them, there are additional laws.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Is everyone you know a criminal?

 

[Skiddles2014]

So you prove my point, idiot.

Laws don't stop people from breaking them. They are words on paper. Criminals break laws every day. How hard is that for you to understand?

No you fucking idiot. Laws don't stop people, but they PREVENT them from becoming 'criminals'.

For instance, I'm sure a lot of people want to smash you in your stupid fucking face on a daily basis, but they don't, only because there are laws prohibiting that behaviour and they don't want to go to jail.

Once again you have no point and you most likely sniff glue.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

And yet we have them.

Yea, we have them so that we have a format with which to punish people for acts we consider a violation of the rights of the individual. You only get punished after you commit the crime. The fear of punishment might stop you, but that fear of punishment has to be grounded in a realistic chance of being caught. If there's no realistic chance of you being caught and prosecuted, there's no worry about committing the crime.

Obviously they are not some sort of magic talisman, or else we would not try criminals and put them in jail.

Apparently a lot of people think they are. That's why they're always clamoring for another law to be written. Witness the recent garbage in Connecticut where the politicians passed laws that would have done nothing to stop a sandy-hook style murder..... and admitted it. They just passed laws that made things more bothersome for law-abiding citizens because it looked good in the press.

Tell me how many words have taken out a room full of school children?

Irrelevant. A gun is no more dangerous than a computer - it's a tool that requires human interaction to function.

 

[cjh]

Yea, we have them so that we have a format with which to punish people for acts we consider a violation of the rights of the individual. You only get punished after you commit the crime. The fear of punishment might stop you, but that fear of punishment has to be grounded in a realistic chance of being caught. If there's no realistic chance of you being caught and prosecuted, there's no worry about committing the crime.



Apparently a lot of people think they are. That's why they're always clamoring for another law to be written. Witness the recent garbage in Connecticut where the politicians passed laws that would have done nothing to stop a sandy-hook style murder..... and admitted it. They just passed laws that made things more bothersome for law-abiding citizens because it looked good in the press.



Irrelevant. A gun is no more dangerous than a computer - it's a tool that requires human interaction to function.

Yup.

We tinker with laws to address problems and we tinker with them when they inadequately address the problem.

And sure it is relevant, unless you are admitting words and bullets are the same under the Constitution.

 

[islandman]

No you fucking idiot. Laws don't stop people, but they PREVENT them from becoming 'criminals'.

For instance, I'm sure a lot of people want to smash you in your stupid fucking face on a daily basis, but they don't, only because there are laws prohibiting that behaviour and they don't want to go to jail.

Once again you have no point and you most likely sniff glue.

Crudely made - though a lot more funny - but this is my point as well.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Yup.

We tinker with laws to address problems and we tinker with them when they inadequately address the problem.

And sure it is relevant, unless you are admitting words and bullets are the same under the Constitution.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. If you had bothered to read the links I posted earlier, you'd have seen that we just plain out ignore infractions of the law and then write new laws that won't fix the problem. How hard is that to understand? You cannot say that a law isn't working if you aren't prosecuting violations of that law.

And, under the constitution, words and bullets are the same. That's why you have the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

All the laws against slander and libel are there for when you use words illegally, and people still do it every day.

 

[cjh]

Unfortunately, that's not the case. If you had bothered to read the links I posted earlier, you'd have seen that we just plain out ignore infractions of the law and then write new laws that won't fix the problem. How hard is that to understand? You cannot say that a law isn't working if you aren't prosecuting violations of that law.

And, under the constitution, words and bullets are the same. That's why you have the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

All the laws against slander and libel are there for when you use words illegally, and people still do it every day.

You are raising a complaint about laws generally, not just laws impacting gun possession and use.

We don't throw up our hands in disgust. We keep doing the hard work of trying to get it right.

And no, words and bullets are not the same under the constitution.

They get regulated differently because the balance of interests is different.

Remind me, again, when words took out a room full of elementary students.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yea, "rly". Criminals break laws. You can't show one instance where a law stopped someone from doing something they wanted to do. How long has murder been illegal? Weed? Speeding?

If you aren't inclined to break a law, you're not a criminal. There are millions of people around the world that go about their lives without breaking any substantive laws.... because they just aren't interested in doing that. It's easy to not murder or buy meth because I'm not interested in either of those things. I don't need a law to tell me not to, and I don't do it because I'm afraid of being prosecuted for it. I just don't do it.

Laws exist to create a framework through which you can prosecute someone after they have committed a crime.

You will always have criminals in any society. All you can hope to do is minimize their numbers and the impact they have on normal society.

How many girls have you sexually assaulted?

 

[Ferrumitzal]

You are raising a complaint about laws generally, not just laws impacting gun possession and use. We don't throw up our hands in disgust. We keep doing the hard work of trying to get it right.

I am not raising a complaint against laws, generally or otherwise. What's with the reading comprehension failures on this site?

ENFORCEMENT, dumbass. How many times do I have to say that? All the laws in the world don't mean shit if there's no enforcement. According to at least one of those links I posted, 98% of all federal gun law violations are not prosecuted. What's the point of having a law on the books if you're going to conveniently ignore it? You cannot say a law isn't working if you're not using it.

You are not "doing the hard work of trying to get it right" because you're not addressing the problem.

 

[cjh]

I am not raising a complaint against laws, generally or otherwise. What's with the reading comprehension failures on this site?

ENFORCEMENT, dumbass. How many times do I have to say that? All the laws in the world don't mean shit if there's no enforcement. According to at least one of those links I posted, 98% of all federal gun law violations are not prosecuted. What's the point of having a law on the books if you're going to conveniently ignore it? You cannot say a law isn't working if you're not using it.

You are not "doing the hard work of trying to get it right" because you're not addressing the problem.

You know what fuckstick, much of America agrees with your opinion.

I am one of them.

How many people got killed with words today?

 

[Ferrumitzal]

...much of America agrees with your opinion. I am one of them.

If you agree with that there's a problem with enforcement, why are you arguing against freedom for non-criminals?

Every single person murdered in this nation is murdered by another person, not by the tool used to commit the murder. If you want to license/register guns and ammunition, you must also apply that same standard to martial arts studios because they train you to kill with your hands, staffs, etc. Or, you must apply that same standard to common household cleaners and sundries that are easily turned into IEDs like at the Boston marathon terrorist attack.

 

[cjh]

If you agree with that there's a problem with enforcement, why are you arguing against freedom for non-criminals?

Every single person murdered in this nation is murdered by another person, not by the tool used to commit the murder. If you want to license/register guns and ammunition, you must also apply that same standard to martial arts studios because they train you to kill with your hands, staffs, etc. Or, you must apply that same standard to common household cleaners and sundries that are easily turned into IEDs like at the Boston marathon terrorist attack.

When was the last time Kung Fu fighters took out a class full of kids?

When is the last time you tried to buy a truckload of ammonium nitrate?

 

[koalabear]

When was the last time Kung Fu fighters took out a class full of kids?

When is the last time you tried to buy a truckload of ammonium nitrate?

Very uncommon with all the farms around here.

 

[cjh]

Very uncommon with all the farms around here.

So is purchasing firearms. So?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-03/pdf/2011-19313.pdf

 

[koalabear]

So is purchasing firearms. So?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-03/pdf/2011-19313.pdf

Shaddup pereg.

 

[Ishmael]

When was the last time Kung Fu fighters took out a class full of kids?

When is the last time you tried to buy a truckload of ammonium nitrate?

Look CJ, the introduction of explosives into the discussion is specious. Explosives are NOT considered "arms." Neither are any sort of artillery, ie. cannons, rockets, etc.

As far as fully automatic weapons are concerned, ala the M-16, etc., I contend that they are constitutionally legal and I rely on the majority opinion in US v. Miller for that contention.

The fact(s) remain that;

1. Firearms are legal and their personal possession are constitutionally protected. This is NOT going to change.

2. Any individual intent on causing mayhem with a firearm, whether obtained legally or not, can only be stopped by another individual, also armed, whose goal is to prevent said mayhem. History has proven the folly of thinking otherwise time and again.

3. Any attempt on the part of the government(s) to outlaw and confiscate legally purchased firearms will result in civil insurrection on a scale never seen before in this nation. I can see no rational court willing to unleash that on this nation.

The fate of the republic will not hinge on this issue, an issue that is but a distraction from the very real threats to the citizenry. Wholesale corruption of the political class, wanton spending of the wealth of future generations, the use of the tax system for political purposes, and the suppression of free expression are the real enemies of the nation. Not guns, gay marriage, abortion, or any of the other distractions that keep the populace from focusing on the real threats.

Ishmael

 

[cjh]

Undoubtedly I disagree with you as to which level the knobs get twisted; I agree in general with your statement, though.

I don't have a problem with guns. Nor do I have a problem with reasonable regulation of them.

Heller made it clear the Court accepts some regulation of them, too.

Heller focused on personal defense; I don't know that an M-16 passes that muster.

What I don't understand, though, is why a sawed-off shotgun does not.

 

[koalabear]

Undoubtedly I disagree with you as to which level the knobs get twisted; I agree in general with your statement, though.

I don't have a problem with guns. Nor do I have a problem with reasonable regulation of them.

Heller made it clear the Court accepts some regulation of them, too.

Heller focused on personal defense; I don't know that an M-16 passes that muster.

What I don't understand, though, is why a sawed-off shotgun does not.

Sawed offs are short and concealable.