Short and to the point: Obama the Liar

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Waters, you once again are out of your element here. Whether or not something may legally be purchased has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the 2nd Amendment gives us a right to own them. The 2nd Amendment is the floor, it is not the ceiling. If a weapon isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment, the government may regulate it or ban it or whatever else it wants. It may also permit it, if the legislature wants to. Stay on point.

answer the question. It's easy to say "I don't know."

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, Il Pad, I did answer the question. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to hold any weapons we want to hold. You know it, and that is why you refuse to answer my question while pretending to be disappointed in my response. Do you have a right to own a rocket launcher? A nuclear weapon? A biological weapon? Why not? How about a tank, or mines? What about a flame thrower, or SAMs? Even you must recognize that some weapons are simply too dangerous for the public to hold. You don't agree that automatic weapons fall into that category, so you claim instead that everyone who thinks they do fall into that category hates the 2nd Amendment. That isn't even an argument. It is an attack.

The 2nd Amendment is a legal instrument. As such, it is subject to legal analysis. There is plenty of justification, under normal methods of legal interpretation, to suggest that automatic weapons aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. Read Heller, for crying out loud. Even the very conservative Scalia disagrees with your view of the amendment. Is he anti-gun?

Your legalese doesn't impress me.

You didn't answer the question.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, Il Pad, I did answer the question. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to hold any weapons we want to hold. You know it, and that is why you refuse to answer my question while pretending to be disappointed in my response. Do you have a right to own a rocket launcher? A nuclear weapon? A biological weapon? Why not? How about a tank, or mines? What about a flame thrower, or SAMs? Even you must recognize that some weapons are simply too dangerous for the public to hold. You don't agree that automatic weapons fall into that category, so you claim instead that everyone who thinks they do fall into that category hates the 2nd Amendment. That isn't even an argument. It is an attack.

The 2nd Amendment is a legal instrument. As such, it is subject to legal analysis. There is plenty of justification, under normal methods of legal interpretation, to suggest that automatic weapons aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. Read Heller, for crying out loud. Even the very conservative Scalia disagrees with your view of the amendment. Is he anti-gun?

I would like to add that it matters little to me what Scalia thinks of the 2nd Amendment. I am no more required to agree with Scalia, on a personal basis, as I was required to agree with previous SCOTUS decisions.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Period. You cannot convince me differently.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

answer the question. It's easy to say "I don't know."

The answer is: irrelevant.

My best recollection is that automatic weapons may be purchased now with a license, but only if the firing mechanism is set so it can't fire off more than a certain number of rounds in spurts. Silencers I believe are illegal.

Again, irrelevant.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Your legalese doesn't impress me.

You didn't answer the question.

Is English your first language?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I would like to add that it matters little to me what Scalia thinks of the 2nd Amendment. I am no more required to agree with Scalia, on a personal basis, as I was required to agree with previous SCOTUS decisions.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Period. You cannot convince me differently.

Nobody needs to convince you that self-defense is not a fundamental right. But what does that have to do with assault weapons? Are you arguing that you can only protect yourself if you have them? That is a pretty silly argument.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Is English your first language?

Yes, it is. Perhaps English isn't your first language.

Again, he wants to limit to limit the right to own weapons. How is that pro-2nd Amendment?

It's a very simple, straight forward question.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Nobody needs to convince you that self-defense is not a fundamental right. But what does that have to do with assault weapons? Are you arguing that you can only protect yourself if you have them? That is a pretty silly argument.

When the members of the National Guard do not use "evil assault weapons", and militaries of other nations do not use "evil assault weapons", THEN perhaps I would feel differently. For civilians to own a firearm, that is a HOBBLED version of what a National Guardsman uses--that is the MINIMUM.

The sovereignty lies with the PEOPLE. An unarmed people, not capable of defending itself against enemies and tyrants, cannot have sovereignty. In otherwords, jackasses of the world, you can't have freedom without deterrents.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Yes, it is. Perhaps English isn't your first language.

Again, he wants to limit to limit the right to own weapons. How is that pro-2nd Amendment?

It's a very simple, straight forward question.

Which has already been answered in very simple, straight-forward language.

The limits he proposes cover territory not also covered by the 2nd Amendment. He can support a ban on assault weapons AND favor the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect assault weapons.

Why is this so hard? It is as if you keep asking "how can he like ice cream if he likes steak?" Well, he likes both, and one has nothing to do with the other.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

When the members of the National Guard do not use "evil assault weapons", and militaries of other nations do not use "evil assault weapons", THEN perhaps I would feel differently. For civilians to own a firearm, that is a HOBBLED version of what a National Guardsman uses--that is the MINIMUM.

The sovereignty lies with the PEOPLE. An unarmed people, not capable of defending itself against enemies and tyrants, cannot have sovereignty. In otherwords, jackasses of the world, you can't have freedom without deterrents.

Are you suggesting we all have a right to own every weapon used by the national guard? Seriously?