Habemus papam!

[Pat Hartman]

I suppose, if they have the wherewithal to produce them The POINT of the second amendment was that the government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around. At the time of the Revolution, the British military and the American citizens were pretty closely matched. The citizens didn't use cannons but they had the wherewithal to produce them should it come to that. And everyone made their own ammunition. Also during that period many households in cities and all households outside of cities had guns. Strangely, during that period, guns just didn't up and kill people of their own volition. Everyone respected guns and taught their children from an early age that they were not toys.

Given the advances in military technology since the Constitution was written, the second amendment is almost moot since the citizens really have no defense against actually military troops.

 

[AccessBlaster]

So, everyday Americans should be allowed to own nuclier weapons?

Probably the dumbest thing I'll hear today, oh wait Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom have yet to speak. I'll reserve my judgment.

 

[moke123]

The POINT of the second amendment was that the government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.

Some argue the point was to have a citizen militia rather than a standing government army.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Some argue the point was to have a citizen militia rather than a standing government army.

Unless you read all of Article I

 

[Thales750]

This has already been violated to such an extent that it is meaningless.

How do you mean?

Gun owner ship has been growing ? Your views are so distorted literally on every subject. Do you care that facts rarely ever mesh with your words?

The United States has the highest estimated number of civilian guns per capita globally, with an estimated 120.5 firearms for every 100 people. This represents a significant portion of the world's total civilian-held firearms, with the US owning approximately 46% of the global total. In 2020, Gallup reported that 44% of US households have guns, and 32% of adults personally own a firearm.

 

[Thales750]

Probably the dumbest thing I'll hear today, oh wait Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom have yet to speak. I'll reserve my judgment.

You must be feeling pretty good Pat approves of your opinion.

I'm sorry the question was to deep for you. It was meant to establish boundaries as to what level of weaponry Pat thought should be off limits. She went on to explain that even nuclear weapons should be allowed.

So really, not as dumb of a question as you say. Fanatics can't hide their spots.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment was that citizens should be able to defend themselves. But if you read the supplemental discussions, that EXPLICITLY includes the ability to tell either an invader OR their own overreaching government to F.O. and go pound sand.

I'm not generally in favor of having nukes around, but if Iran eventually develops their own viable nukes, expect air quality to go downhill real fast. Now THAT would definitely qualify as "atmospheric damage" in my book.

You want to know where I draw the line? If there is to be balance, the bad guys need to fear me as much as I fear them. That is the true meaning of the word "deterrence." Read that as you like.

 

[Thales750]

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment was that citizens should be able to defend themselves. But if you read the supplemental discussions, that EXPLICITLY includes the ability to tell either an invader OR their own overreaching government to F.O. and go pound sand.

I'm not generally in favor of having nukes around, but if Iran eventually develops their own viable nukes, expect air quality to go downhill real fast. Now THAT would definitely qualify as "atmospheric damage" in my book.

You want to know where I draw the line? If there is to be balance, the bad guys need to fear me as much as I fear them. That is the true meaning of the word "deterrence." Read that as you like.

I've been a gun owner my entire life. But I have opinions about licensing and such that hard core righties belive is an infringement.

 

[AccessBlaster]

You must be feeling pretty good Pat approves of your opinion.

I'm sorry the question was to deep for you. It was meant to establish boundaries as to what level of weaponry Pat thought should be off limits. She went on to explain that even nuclear weapons should be allowed.

So really, not as dumb of a question as you say. Fanatics can't hide their spots.

Ok, Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass have spoken, your off the hook. They are dumber.

 

[Thales750]

Ok, Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass have spoken, your off the hook. They are dumber.

The fanatic sentence was aimed at Pat, not you.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

But I have opinions about licensing and such that hard core righties belive is an infringement.

Gun licensing is a roadmap to gun confiscation which is ABSOLUTELY an infringement on the 2nd amendment.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I'm sorry the question was to deep for you. It was meant to establish boundaries as to what level of weaponry Pat thought should be off limits. She went on to explain that even nuclear weapons should be allowed.

You do understand that your question was so ridiculous it didn't deserve a straight answer? Individuals do not have the ability to build nukes and even with the help of the internet never will. Dirty bombs, maybe but they have to find the uranium. Individuals can't even build tanks, nor can they build cannons or aircraft carriers.

A more realistic question would be do I believe Iran should have nukes? The answer is no. Why? Because they will use them to first destroy Israel and if they still have anyone left standing, we are next. People who chant in the streets - Death to Israel} Death to America! need to be taken seriously and treated as the dangerous enemies they are. Iran is currently funding terrorists on several fronts to attack Israel and even Saudi Arabia. And due to our borders being open for four years, who knows how many sleeper cells we have here already planning the next 9/11. Sure hope they pick your neighborhood rather than mine since you think the open border was no problem.

How do you mean?

Restrictions on weapon type and controls on accessories and they are keeping lists of who has what and that will enable the government to confiscate legal weapons as they have done in other "democratic" countries such as Australia.

Yes, more new people are purchasing weapons and they are paying lots of money to do so. That is another type of restriction. You have to be able to pay all the illegal fees to even submit an application to purchase a weapon. Remember when we had poll taxes to keep poor blacks from voting? This is the same type of legislation.

 

[Thales750]

Gun licensing is a roadmap to gun confiscation which is ABSOLUTELY an infringement on the 2nd amendment.

in the late 70s the NRA had a campaign "The Slippery Slope" Yeah it was a slippery slope alright. Your response is not even close to reality. Law abiding citizens are happy to register their guns. i say take it to serial number built in to rounds as well.
is there any topic that you don't take the most extreme view possible?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Law abiding citizens are happy to register their guns.

You really think so? Not people I know. Fifty states each have their own set of regulations and if you happen to be carrying a gun and just crossed a state border where you were in compliance for the state you left but not for the state you entered and you get stopped for some random reason such as a non-functional tail light, you could end up in jail.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I do understand the arguments for registering guns. This helps law enforcement if a gun is used to commit a crime. The downside is it gives the unscrupulous government a list to use when they decide to confiscate weapons.

I would love to see statistics regarding crimes committed by the registered gun owner vs crimes committed with a stolen or unregistered weapon.

 

[Thales750]

You really think so? Not people I know.

Birds of the feather.

 

[Thales750]

I do understand the arguments for registering guns. This helps law enforcement if a gun is used to commit a crime. The downside is it gives the unscrupulous government a list to use when they decide to confiscate weapons.

I would love to see statistics regarding crimes committed by the registered gun owner vs crimes committed with a stolen or unregistered weapon.

the fact that the registration creates a a fault point for tracing the gun, and the people that stole it. Your car is registered, your boat is registered, both require liability insurance, guns should require registration and liability insurance as well.

Do you own a gun? have you been to the range to practice discharging it?

 

[Thales750]

Sure hope they pick your neighborhood rather than mine since you think the open border was no problem.

You don't have the facilities to extrapolate what I think. And wishing bad on someone because they don't drink your cool aid is pretty low. No wonder you love Trump so much. Better dig two graves there Pat.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Your car is registered, your boat is registered, both require liability insurance, guns should require registration and liability insurance as well.

Neither my car nor my boat are explicitly referenced in the constitution. Owning and using either one is a government-granted PRIVILEGE. For such vehicles, there are usage taxes and licensing requirements plus penalties for folks who abuse their privilege. Owning a gun is a constitutionally granted RIGHT. You DO understand the difference, don't you? And there ARE penalties for folks who abuse their gun rights.

Your response is not even close to reality. Law abiding citizens are happy to register their guns. i say take it to serial number built in to rounds as well.

Reality and you are not well-acquainted, apparently. Law-abiding citizens register because that is currently required even though it remains an infringement. But criminals don't give a rat's patoot about registration laws. AND there are cases before SCOTUS relating to people's right to make their own weapons. There is a furor over "ghost guns" - but the fact that such things exist and occur frequently enough to CAUSE that furor is an indication that your view of reality might be a bit skewed. And I should point out that there is actually a "gotcha" in what you said. "Law abiding citizens" would not have to get licenses except for the laws that gun-control knee-jerk idiots put in place regarding licensing. AND there are repeated SCOTUS cases - most recently out of New York state - regarding licensing requirements. Though Washington State has recently tried to put up a law that you have to have the license BEFORE you can get the gun.

is there any topic that you don't take the most extreme view possible?

Haven't you figured out yet that I don't mind playing Devil's Advocate if in doing so I can expose someone else's extremely short-sighted or otherwise incorrect viewpoint? Sometimes it becomes possible to use reductio ad absurdam as a tactic. Though often in your case, you have actually anticipated my strategy by diving deeply into absurdity all by yourself and without prompting. I want to thank you for your cooperation, efficiency, and kindness in doing so.

 

[Thales750]

Haven't you figured out yet that I don't mind playing Devil's Advocate if in doing so I can expose someone else's extremely short-sighted or otherwise incorrect viewpoint?

And yet, 72% of the people of the USA agree with me.