conversation on constitutional authority with a fencesitter

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

voilsb

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
633
Location
Ft. Lewis, WA
I had an IM conversation with a friend of mine, who happens to be a gun-rights fence-sitter. He's got the uneducated (in this issue) position of "if they got passed, then they have to be reasonable gun laws."

In particular, we were talking about the 86 MG ban and the 34 NFA.

I'm not posting it here, because it's kinda long, but I'll link it: Constitutional Authority

Tell me what you think, whether I did okay, where I could improve, etc ... basically, I'm asking if you'll provide input to the situation, give me proverbial ammo, and provide generally an AAR sort of atmosphere.

Thanks a bunch!
 
Tell me what you think, whether I did okay, where I could improve, etc ...
Click to expand...

You did just fine, my friend. You have your head screwed on.

Your friend on the other hand, just doesn't get it. I admit that I couldn't finish reading the conversation because it was aggrevating me too much to see him sound so "conservative" on the 1st Amendment, but so liberal on the 2nd.

My advice to you is this: Avoid instand messenger for serious conversations (personal experience talking). When discussing things like politics, or relationships :)eek: !), do it thru email or other written media that is more refinable, or even face to face or on the phone, rather than the quick and sloppy nature of Instant Messengers. This is nothing against you or your friend, it's just the way IMs negatively effect anything but the lightest of conversations.

Cheers,
Wes
 
The nuclear arms argument is specious.

"...the right to keep and bear *arms* shall not be infringed."

Nuclear weapons are ordinance, not arms, and the Framers knew the difference. Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified by folks who kept cannon in their front yards.

That being said, I wonder if someone who was skilled enough to make a nuke would be skillful enough to keep you from knowing about it? (Korea)

Rick
 
My advice to you is this: Avoid instand messenger for serious conversations (personal experience talking). When discussing things like politics, or relationships ( !), do it thru email or other written media that is more refinable, or even face to face or on the phone, rather than the quick and sloppy nature of Instant Messengers.
Click to expand...
And thank you for that advice. I, too, prefer to talk about this sort of thing face-to-face. Unfortunately, I didn't plan this one. We were simply making light conversation, and it came up.

Also, someone else (not here) mentioned that I should have pointed him to Oleg's www.a-human-right.com. I've known about that page for quite a while, and I wish I'd remembered it, but I simply didn't. No biggie, though. I hadn't noticed before that Oleg addresses NFA items, so I don't think it'll help with this specific issue, but it's a good place to start nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Fixed :)

I dunno why I picked .org instead of .com, though. I usually check my links before posting, and I was *just* at the page when I linked it, too. Oh well, mistakes happen.
 
Nuclear weapons are ordinance, not arms, and the Framers knew the difference. Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified by folks who kept cannon in their front yards.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I'm missing something but how does your second sentence not completely contradict your first? Artillery is ordnance not arms. I have heard the "arms means guns not crew served weapons" argument before to rationalize regulating nuclear weapons and considering American history I don't buy into it.

Historically, if a private citizen could afford it, they could build and fit out a Ship of the Line. It didn't happen because ships of the line were ridiculously expensive to build and maintain and little legitimate profit could be made with them. However it could have been done and that level of firepower is as close as a Revolutionary/Napoleanic citizen could get to a nuclear weapon.

The "what about nukes" argument is far from the straw man people claim it is. It is a completely valid extrapolation of the behavior of the revolutionary period. It is the cardinal flaw of 2nd amendment absolutism which is why I cannot ever consider myself a 2A absolutist.
 
Unfortunately, I didn't plan this one. We were simply making light conversation, and it came up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've had the same kind of thing happen. It sucks, huh? :D That's okay though, you did great. Keep working on your friend. As long as you don't get overbearing (and we all want to sometimes), they will notice that you stay level-headed about it, and that you're well informed.

Good job. ;)

Wes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top