How to Answer this Anti Point?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hyperbole is not an argument.
I came across this point from someone the other day. He said "Well looks like people will be buying rocket launchers."

I asked him if he agreed with the whole Sarah Palin Death Panel thing a few months back. He said "of course not!" I said "your statement is the same thing."
 
If aliens from the Glorpton system have decided that your existence offends them, and have dispatched their space armada to dispatch you, it would be entirely valid to oppose them with your own privately owned space armada, if you can find one.
Click to expand...

I love this forum.

You guys are helping me learn a lot, (assuming a 51 year old can still learn) and it's so often done deftly, with so much thought/information/meaning packed into well chosen words.

Thanks. I mean it.

Les
 
cbrgator was the first post I glanced at, there are probably others who have said the same thing, bazookas, tanks, nuclear bombs, and aircraft carriers are not arms, they are ordnance. Arms are weapons used BY individuals, (meaning not CREW-SERVED weapons,) AGAINST individuals. (Meaning, not tanks, equipment or infrastructure.)
 
^^^^
I don't mean to seem to be sucking up, but that's another really good contribution addressing facets of the "where's the line" discussion. (Assuming defining a "line" is valid at all).

Was the distinction between "arms" and "ordnance" already well-established when the 2A was written?

Les
 
There was certainly a distinction between weapons that an individual could reasonably be expected to keep , bear, and be proficient with for the purposes of national or personal defense. It was expected that every able-bodied male could supply a musket and a certain amount of ammunition. It probably wasn't expected that a citizen would show up to fight with cannon which had to be pulled with a team and run by a crew against enemy buildings. For specifics under law and history, you would have to ask someone smarter than me.
 
Screw this "where's the line" discussion. There is no spoon. There is no line.

Are you guys familiar with Common Law, as it was mentioned in the Supreme Law of the Land. It is unwritten law that basically states you shouldn't eff with anybody.

To elaborate just a bit on Common Law (i.e. - "Don't Eff With Another Man")
- Don't harm another man unless in self-defense.
- Don't harm another man's property.
- Don't commit fraud or mischief in your contract with another man.

If you can follow that... you're following the True Law.

I can lawfully possess moonshine, hookers, cocaine, & canons. Perhaps not legally, but lawfully... yes!

Now... the second that I snort a line off my canon and accidentally blow a massive load in the face of a drunk hooker.... Then I have broken the law.
 
People often forget (even here it would seem) that one of the functions of Congress is to issue Letters of Marque. For those unfamiliar with the term, basically it's a letter that lets you be a pirate. In order to successfully be issued said LOM you must provide all your own materials. Ship, crew, and yes cannon and shot. How is one to own a cannon if they are not legally protected?
 
As much as I understand, or even agree with, the sentiments of the above four posts, I suspect that none of this wisdom would keep either me or you from becoming a customer of the current US criminal justice system.

Les
 
The antis would say: well we disallow bazookas too,
Click to expand...

In my opinion, from my reading of the decision, the Supreme Court used the same criteria in McDonald as they did in Heller, that you couldn't ban an entire class of firearms. But the city or state could ban an "unusual" weapon. A bazooka, or a rocket launcher, or an 105 Recoil-less rifle would likely be considered "unusual."

I'm sure an anti-gun nut would consider an AR platform rifle unusual, and it may be in their little world. But considering that it's likely the most popular rifle being sold today, that in most rational folks opinion would make it a quite usual thing.

Either way, swaying the opinion of an anti-gun person to consider it "usual" for anyone to own ANY firearm would be a monumental ordeal. In their special world, if you just tell everyone to get rid of their guns, they will. The refuse to believe that if a gun ban is passed that anyone would violate that ban, regardless of proof that criminals don't follow gun laws, law abiding citizens do.
 
cbrgator was the first post I glanced at, there are probably others who have said the same thing, bazookas, tanks, nuclear bombs, and aircraft carriers are not arms, they are ordnance. Arms are weapons used BY individuals, (meaning not CREW-SERVED weapons,) AGAINST individuals. (Meaning, not tanks, equipment or infrastructure.)
Click to expand...

Given that things like tanks and bazookas are currently legal to own (though requiring a transfer tax), are you suggesting that they ought to be banned?
 
There is no rational debate possible.

Your Liberal friend understands the concept that regulations that exert a "chilling effect" on the exercise of a fundamental right are unconstitutional. But that presupposes that the right is fundamental.

Liberals do not believe the right to bear arms is fundamental and they certainly do not believe the right to a handgun is fundamental.

All you can do is show the Liberal that he or she is not willing to accept a ruling of the Supreme Court and lay the seed for conversion of your friend.
 
wrs840 said:
As much as I understand, or even agree with, the sentiments of the above four posts, I suspect that none of this wisdom would keep either me or you from becoming a customer of the current US criminal justice system.
Click to expand...
I'm totally fine. I've been studying this stuff for the past year, and I can definitely hold my own.

While I would do my best to help a cop understand, perhaps his brain might be too small... and he sets me up for my day in court. When that day comes, I can assure you that no judge would find me guilty of a criminal offense.

A crime needs three things: the perpetrator, the criminal action, the victim. You cannot have a crime without a victim. Point blank. Our Constitution allows all alleged criminal offenders to face their accuser(s).

THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI is not a victim, nor are "The People" harmed in anyway, from me merely possessing a firearm. You can't cross-examine THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, a corporate entity. The court might try to get me to admit that I "understand" (which, in legalese, means "stand under") certain statutes (which don't apply to all men to begin with), or that I am a U.S. Citizen, or a Resident, or some other tricky things.

Merely state: "I reserve all my rights, and I waive this benefit privilege. I am standing on land, therefore, I claim Common Law jurisdiction."

Yadda yadda. These are just terms that you must understand, but you can't understand until you ask the judge for his meaning of the terms (best to ask the meaning of these terms before you see the judge... but you're not limited to a number of questions you can ask in court. keep that in mind as well! ;)). These aren't words; they're terms!! They've already got distinct meanings.

If a statute is law, why not call it law? See post #18 in What's the difference between a RIGHT & a PRIVILEGE to bear arms? to realize that you can step outside of society if you so choose. If you don't like the way things are going in THE UNITED STATES, then why remain a U.S. Citizen?
 
Staying with the Constitution and looking back to the times when it was being written: Military weapons were, primarily, rifles/muskets and cannon. There was no prohibition against the private ownership of either. Some village militias, if they could afford it, had cannons.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights implicitly calls for parity between the citizenry and the State insofar as the ability to avoid an abuse of power by the State; that's the "why" of the Bill of Rights.

Governments have no rights; governments have powers.

So: With parity in mind, how would it go against the Constitution if a citizen had a nuclear device? This has nothing to do with common sense, practicality or even law--it's about a constitutional right of a citizen.

The First Amendment was written in the days of quill pens. Why would it be different, somehow, in this age of iPods and computers? The First Amendment holds for blogs as it does for newspapers.

Do rights somehow change with technology?
 
You guys ever heard the saying...

"Your right to swing your fist ends where another man's nose begins."

???

If someone can truly build a nuclear device in a cave, all by himself, just like Tony Stark. Then there's nothing you can do to stop him.

If he requires commercial assistance (which he will), or starts trading with Federal Reserve Notes, then THE UNITED STATES will be on him before he can complete the job.

Why don't I deserve a nuclear reactor on my property to power my house, well, hydrogen fuel generator, etcetera???
 
Well... there's the bit about the executive branch being able to impose its will on everyone in a "time of war" or whatever.

There's the bit about the legislative branch creating "legislative rules of society", which they have to do for commercial persons, like corporations and such. How many of you knew that a corporation is a person??

If he truly could build something like that by himself without using FRNs and corporations, who I'm sure are already obliged not to sell to individual civilians, then there would be no point at all.
 
You do realize that as a matter of principle, that our *government* has no freestanding, inherent power to possess nuclear weapons, right?

Just because it's a government doesn't mean it has magical nuclear powers.

The reason our government has the power to possess nuclear arms is because we delegated our own personal power to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy to it Section I, article 8. This delegation, however, is not, and has never been an *exclusive* grant, and there is substantial case law on that point.

Furthermore, the power to inhibit individual ownership of nukes is found in precisely the same place that the power to require citizens to own certain forms of health insurance was found, which is to say, it was yanked directly from Congress' festering {bleeep}.
 
Concede nothing. What a concept and I agree with it. We are taking ground at this point. It appears as if many new fronts have been opened regarding suits for restoration of our 2nd amendment rights. Please gents, let's put our money where our mouths are and go for the complete victory.

As far as dealing with antis on an individual basis I take the high ground quickly every time by explaining a home invasion robbery I had a few years back. I'd be dead now if not for having guns at the ready and a willingness to use them. I explain (if they will listen) how it went down and then tell them how dare them put me into that situation without a gun. I have encountered many politically connected antis that have all said the same thing, "Well maybe". If nothing else they are put into a position where they have to think rationally. I try to put them into a home invasion robbery scenario in their thought process. There can only be but one conclusion when four men are threatening to kill you and that is.....Be armed or Die.
 
Wow. I have struggled with this question for many years. I truly feel that the 2nd allows us to keep and bear arms. Arms, to me, are weapons. period. That means tanks and 240's and f-16's and 10-22's and pocket knives and baseball bats and shotguns with 10" barrells and LAWs rockets, and, yep, weapons. But I know in my dark little heart that there are problems with that theory that will really take some ironing out. I want my handgun legal, and I wish that I could keep a LAWS rocket to deal with a drive by during the apocalypse, but there are certain toys that I don't want the guy on the corner to have in his shop. period. That makes me a hypocrite. ouch. :what:

In the end, I'm REALLY glad that I don't have the final word on this, because it would really and truly cause me to lose more than one nights sleep. :banghead:
 
The Constitution was not the government giving rights to the people. It was the people giving rights to the government.

While the courts have maintained and established that no right is absolute (ie, freedom of speech - does not apply to school teachers cussing in front of pre-schoolers) those courts should be doing so, based on what the people of the nation, states, communities, and ultimately, families, desire.

The supreme court is just another branch of government subject to the people. Congress does not give us a right to bear arms, the president does not, and neither do the courts, and that includes the Supreme Court. Check and balance is the Supreme Court telling the feds no, not the courts telling the citizens no. The states do not "grant" us rights; that would imply we are subjects of said state. The same applies to cities. Our right to bear arms (and free speech, religion, etc) is inherent in our right to self-government.

When someone presents the argument of banning nukes, tanks, grenades, etc, knowing that it is a prelude to banning other guns, my rebuttal is: "If the people desire these classes of weapons to be banned, and possession by private citizens disallowed, then our representatives should hear our voice, and pass reasonable laws that reflect what "we the people" as a majority, so desire". Now at question, is not what is and is not bannable, but what the majority of our citizenry desires the law to be.

Ultimately, it takes a 2/3 majority to change the Constitution. Many amendments have been created over the years (ending slavery, sufferage, prohibition, repeal of prohibition, etc). Yet a few anti-gun people still make these obscenely extreme arguments, thinking themselves clever. If the majority truly felt the way they do, it would be no problem whatsoever for congress to amend the constitution simply to clarify the 2A, and make further legislation legal and now "Constitutional". They haven't. Not because the NRA is a 4 million member strong powerhouse that politicians fear (that is only roughly only 1% of the population) but because politicians and businesses know the rule of 20's. For every customer that calls in and complains, or expresses satisfaction, 20 others felt the same way but did not take the time to communicate. That means 80 million pro-gunners out there, just based on membership in the NRA, and not counting the fact that our nation averages 90 guns per 100 people. THAT indicates a majority that does not favor gun control, and again, it's now on the anti-gunner to prove contrary.
 
To everyone who thinks that "Arms" means personal weapons, that can be individually targeted, I would like to know why the lead up to the the second world war, with the build up in battleships and heavy, crew served weapons (including rockets, tanks, and all manner of weaponry that was far from personal) was referred to as an arms race, and why the cold war was referred to as an arms race, when we were talking about nuclear weaponry?


All weapons are arms, and we have the absolute right, according to the constitution, to own them.

Stop worrying about your annoying neighbor stockpiling multi million dollar weapons, and start worrying about what the federal government is doing when they don't have to fear any large corporations dropping a nuclear weapon onto DC because the feds screwed them over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Alternatives for protectecting RKBA.....
Replies
0
Views
246
BowStreetRunner
B
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
N.Y. High Court Judge Takes Colleagues to Task Over Constitutional Issue in Gun Case‏
Replies
5
Views
1K
Dominus
D
Z
  • Locked
High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights
Replies
5
Views
879
Sam1911
S
P
  • Locked
Converting ANTIS
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Zundfolge
Zundfolge
A
  • Locked
Alan Gura Files for Cert in Kalchalsky
Replies
6
Views
885
colorado_handgunner
C
Back
Top