It is in the fucking name: BILL OF RIGHTS
Since when did the government naming something make it so?
The Second Amendment - obsolete and in need of reform
Posts
Total:
229
-->
@Athias
Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you that obtuse or are you being that dense on purpose!?!
Cherry-picking Forrest Gump.
-->
@badger
Do you think people should be allowed to own nuclear bombs?
People already do own nuclear bombs. They call themselves members of government. And since one's intentions are beyond the epistemological limit of another, it really makes little to no difference whether one identifies as a "member of government" or "average civilian." However, if we're going by track record, far more incidences of mass murder has occurred by instruction of governments than the average Joe. And it's not even close.
-->
@Greyparrot
It never ceases to amaze me how many people wrongly believe the Constitution grants rights when it actually has one purpose only. To strip rights from the government.
Well stated.
-->
@Greyparrot
Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
John Jack Russell at his best.
Because the 9th amendment expressly repels the notions of semantic warriors like yourself from using that which isn't explicitly delineated in the Bill of Rights as means to deny one's rights.
The 9th amendment expressly repels the notions of semantic warriors? - LOL THE 9th AMENDMENT REPELS NOTIONS SAYS THE DB
Don't care.
YOU OBVIOUSLY DO CARE BUT YOU DON’T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE OBJECTING TO
Are Americans allowed to buy automatic weapons?
No, but no force should prevent them from doing so.
AMERICANS CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS BUT NO FORCE SHOULD PREVENT THEM? That’s brilliant
Thompson machine guns like the Al Capone days or a .30 caliber belt fed machine guns?
I wouldn't know. To be frank, I didn't know that Tommy guns were still manufactured.
So you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If we can ban those, and we have, why not Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines? Why are you appealing to common practice rather than substantiating or justifying any measure which would attempt to BAN firearms?
Appealing to common practice? lol. I know you’re French but do you understand English?
Do you have any experience with firearms?
Yes
Such as?
Are you an artist?
-->
@TWS1405
Oh you definitely deserve to be the subject of ad hominem attacks as a former enlisted soldier MP turned bounty hunter who thinks he’s a wealthy law partner who acts as the spelling police while using a dictionary to write his pathetic little posts.
-->
@TWS1405
Get a clue Mr. Magoo!
Hey LCpl, was this a real ad hominem attack or was the context juxtaposed on a fallacious observation of the viewer who perceives you as a prick?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The 9th amendment expressly repels the notions of semantic warriors? - LOL THE 9th AMENDMENT REPELS NOTIONS SAYS THE DB
Contention? Counterargument?
YOU OBVIOUSLY DO CARE BUT YOU DON’T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE OBJECTING TO
As an authority on that which I do and do not care about, no I do not care. But let me correct myself since that suggests "feelings"; It's not a matter of importance or concern whether you want all firearms banned. The fact that you argue that some of them should be banned merits scrutiny.
AMERICANS CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS BUT NO FORCE SHOULD PREVENT THEM? That’s brilliant
Thank you. I don't like to toot my own horn. Except...
So you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Did I ever suggest I knew anything about the manufacture and distribution of Tommy guns?
Appealing to common practice? lol. I know you’re French but do you understand English?
Better than most.
Such as?
I possess and own firearms.
Are you an artist?
I dabble.
-->
@Athias
I possess and own firearms.
So you possess AND own. Thanks for clearing that up Frenchie.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So you possess AND own.
Yes. Possession is physical; ownership is conceptual.
Thanks for clearing that up Frenchie.
I don't like his character. Can I be Mother's Milk?
-->
@TWS1405
It guarantees rights, not grants rights where the BOR are concerned.
No LCpl, if that where true, where did the rights come from that the BOR guarantees? There is no real distinction between granting and guaranteeing when it comes to the BOR.
-->
@Athias
Yes. Possession is physical; ownership is conceptual.
That’s nonsense. The definition of posses is to own. SEE LINK BELOW
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No LCpl, if that where true, where did the rights come from that the BOR guarantees?
Moral principle.
-->
@Athias
Moral principle.
The reason some Founders and members of the state ratification committees insisted on a BOR was Moral Principle couldn’t be relied upon to confer rights on the people.
-->
@Athias
People already do own nuclear bombs. They call themselves members of government. And since one's intentions are beyond the epistemological limit of another, it really makes little to no difference whether one identifies as a "member of government" or "average civilian."
I'm sure you understand the point I'm getting at. Your individualism is fine and dandy if we're all living on our own little islands, but we're not. Nuclear bombs in the hands of members of government comes with vetting and elections and protocols and whatever else. Threat management. That's what it means to live alongside other people.
Can't I get a yes or no answer? Let's see the consistency in your philosophy.
However, if we're going by track record, far more incidences of mass murder has occurred by instruction of governments than the average Joe. And it's not even close.
And average Joe probably definitely still has the bigger body count, right?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That’s nonsense. The definition of posses is to own. SEE LINK BELOW
possession(pəˈzɛʃən)n1. the act of possessing or state of being possessed: in possession of the crown.2. anything that is owned or possessed3. (plural) wealth or property4. the state of being controlled or dominated by or as if by evil spirits5. the physical control or occupancy of land, property, etc, whether or not accompanied by ownership: to take possession of a house.6. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a territory subject to a foreign state or to a sovereign prince: colonial possessions.7. (General Sporting Terms) sport control of the ball, puck, etc, as exercised by a player or team: he lost possession in his own half.
The reason some Founders and members of the state ratification committees insisted on a BOR was Moral Principle couldn’t be relied upon to confer rights on the people.
Which founders and members of state ratification insisted on a bill of rights for the reason you mentioned?
-->
@Athias
Which founders and members of state ratification insisted on a bill of rights for the reason you mentioned?
Well not surprisingly the anti-Federalists. You know who they are of course.
-->
@badger
I'm sure you understand the point I'm getting at.
I do.
Your individualism is fine and dandy if we're all living on our own little islands, but we're not.
Why are you so interested in my individualism?
Nuclear bombs in the hands of members of government comes with vetting
Vetted by who? Members of government?
and elections
So majoritarian consensus prevents the abuse of power? Then why are governments the most prominent mass murderers?
and protocols and whatever else.
Explain "whatever else."
Threat management.
Explain "threat management."
That's what it means to live alongside other people.
INDIVIDUALISM =/= ISOLATION.
Can't I get a yes or no answer? Let's see the consistency in your philosophy.
Now if my philosophy proffers the concept of individual sovereignty, what authority would "allow" them? What authority is there other than their own? Does that suffice?
*NOTE: You never have to concern yourself with the consistency of my philosophy. Consistency is my primary goal in argumentation.
And average Joe probably definitely still has the bigger body count, right?
No.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Well not surprisingly the anti-Federalists. You know who they are of course.
I know who the Anti-Federalist were. But I asked you who they were, and which ones cited "moral principle" as unreliable as it concerned "conferring" rights.
-->
@Athias
Well, who are the most prominent anti-Federalists from the time of the Constitutional Convention? Do you not know? Do you know who proposed the BOR in the first Congress?
-->
@Athias
Why are you so interested in my individualism?
You asked this new fun fighty member to substantiate or justify any measure which would attempt to ban firearms. I figured if I build justification inside of your philosophy, that's a winner.
So how about those nuclear bombs in individuals' hands?
No.
I googled it for you. There's 400,000 homicides a year. That's adding up fast.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Well, who are the most prominent anti-Federalists from the time of the Constitutional Convention? Do you not know? Do you know who proposed the BOR in the first Congress?
Quote them verbatim.
-->
@Athias
You don’t know who the leading anti-Federalist are do you? Can you name some books you’ve read about the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention? I’m starting to think you are a serious poser. Was “moral principal” as a source of constitutional rights just pulled out of your ass or did you read that somewhere?
-->
@badger
You asked this new fun fighty member
That's a stretch.
to substantiate or justify any measure which would attempt to ban firearms. I figured if I build justification inside of your philosophy, that's a winner.
How do you intend to build justification "within my philosophy?" How does civilian possession and ownership of nuclear bombs undermine or contradict individualism?
So how about those nuclear bombs in individuals' hands?
I have no issue with that so long as they are unarmed.
I googled it for you. There's 400,000 homicides a year. That's adding up fast.
It's gonna take at best a couple hundreds for it to catch up at that rate. And that's if governments stop killing people. What is the plausibility of that prospect?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You don’t know who the leading anti-Federalist are do you? Can you name some books you’ve read about the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention?
Stop derailing. Which founding fathers cited moral principle as "unreliable" as far as it concerned "conferring" rights?
Was “moral principal”
It's "principle," Frenchie.
as a source of constitutional rights just pulled out of your ass or did you read that somewhere?
Why are you so interested in my ass? You're not my type, dude.
-->
@Athias
I have no issue with that so long as they are unarmed.
Well that's foundational, right? I got problems with individuals owning machine guns. We're not so different after all.
It's gonna take at best a couple hundreds for it to catch up at that rate. And that's if governments stop killing people. What is the plausibility of that prospect?
I don't know, dude. They're both big numbers.
-->
@Athias
Derailing? Is that a French term? I can recommend some books on the constitution if you don’t know where to look.
I’ll give you a hint - there are three prominent Virginians who were anti-Federalist who insisted on a Bill of Rights in order to ratify.
Fun & Fighty
-->
@badger
Well that's foundational, right? I got problems with individuals owning machine guns. We're not so different after all.
Actually it is different. Nuclear bombs have a blast radius. Anyone within that blast radius by default is under threat when the nuclear bomb is armed. Guns, assuming they're loaded, create a threat to one at whom the wielder directs it. And in both cases, it is within your right to effectively end the threat. That is not in the least exemplified by banning individuals from owning machine guns.
I don't know, dude. They're both big numbers.
The part you forgot is that homicides make up less than 1% of global deaths. They are both big numbers, no doubt. But if you intend to compare numbers between the average individual and governments, then as I've previously stated, it's not even close.