billvon 3,119 #76 April 10, 2008 >What is 'with in reason'? Handguns, rifles, shotguns and the like. As opposed to Phalanx systems, mustard gas, and armed F-14's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #77 April 10, 2008 Quote>What is 'with in reason'? Handguns, rifles, shotguns and the like. As opposed to Phalanx systems, mustard gas, and armed F-14's. I feel confident in guessing that 99.8% own only handguns, rifles and shotguns. Using the argument that folks may possibly own Phalanx gas, mustard gas and armed F-14's is a weak argument to restrict the 2nd Amendment. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #78 April 10, 2008 QuoteI feel confident in guessing that 99.8% own only handguns, rifles and shotguns. Using the argument that folks may possibly own Phalanx gas, mustard gas and armed F-14's is a weak argument to restrict the 2nd Amendment. It's a great and natural argument for those that think taking the rights of 99.8% of people is ok in order to control the other 0.2%. Of course, it's also lazy. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #79 April 10, 2008 >Using the argument that folks may possibly own Phalanx gas, mustard >gas and armed F-14's is a weak argument to restrict the 2nd Amendment. So you believe the second amendment allows people to own shells loaded with mustard gas? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #80 April 10, 2008 Quote>Last time I looked Sarin was a chemical weapon. Not a firearm. You are correct. However, the constitution does NOT guarantee the right to "bear firearms." Google it if you don't believe me. It says arms. Synonym for weapons. No exclusions specified - firearm, nuclear, chemical, or biological. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #81 April 10, 2008 Quote>Using the argument that folks may possibly own Phalanx gas, mustard >gas and armed F-14's is a weak argument to restrict the 2nd Amendment. So you believe the second amendment allows people to own shells loaded with mustard gas? I want a gatlin gun mounted on my front porch to keep stray kids and pets out. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #82 April 10, 2008 > No exclusions specified - firearm, nuclear, chemical, or biological. Do you therefore believe that private citizens have the constitutional right to have working nuclear weapons in their homes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #83 April 10, 2008 Quote> No exclusions specified - firearm, nuclear, chemical, or biological. Do you therefore believe that private citizens have the constitutional right to have working nuclear weapons in their homes? Yes, but I'd support an amendment changing that. Allowing exceptions to blanket prohibitions against infringements is a dangerous precedent. You end up no laws abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble WHEN they support the administration. Dissenters can be sent to free speech zones away from the press. You get no person being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law EXCEPT when the person is accused of terrorism, or racketeering, or drug law violations. You can't violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures EXCEPT when their effects are electronic and can be intercepted by a fiber optic splitter fed into a semantic content analyzer which lives in a secret government closet at the phone company. Laws don't mean anything when arbitrary exceptions are allowed without going through the same legislative process. When the Constitution doesn't reflect modern needs (like to recognize non-white males) it needs to be changed not ignored. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #84 April 11, 2008 Quote>Using the argument that folks may possibly own Phalanx gas, mustard >gas and armed F-14's is a weak argument to restrict the 2nd Amendment. So you believe the second amendment allows people to own shells loaded with mustard gas? There are many more people harmed by the 1st Amendment than those harmed by shells loaded with mustard gas. Do you think we should change the 1st Amendment? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #85 April 11, 2008 Is the NRA still looking for a replacement? I think this guy wants the job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #86 April 11, 2008 QuoteThere are many more people harmed by the 1st Amendment than those harmed by shells loaded with mustard gas. Do you think we should change the 1st Amendment? Why are there so few people in the US who have been harmed by sulfur mustard in the last 50 years? First order reason, explanation is because there are extremely strict laws prohibiting possession (i.e., death is one punishment permissible w/in the statutes.) Second order reason, because it's hard (for the average citizen) to make without injuring oneself along the way, i.e., effectively weaponized sulfur mustard and munitions are very hard to get. Between those two, explain 99% of lack of domestic US harm caused by sulfur mustard (or any other CW). "Draconian" sentences for punishment and lack of access. Not an argument that I would want to take too far w/r/t private gun rights. By what metric are you measuring harm? Severe & excrutiatingly painful burns for which no antidote exists even today, temporary & very painful blindness, and cancer versus what? BTW: sulfur mustard is *not* a “gas” at any temperature you would want to be around. The boiling point is above 400F. Sulfur mustard actually decomposes in an oxygenated atmosphere before boiling. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #87 April 11, 2008 QuoteQuote> No exclusions specified - firearm, nuclear, chemical, or biological. Do you therefore believe that private citizens have the constitutional right to have working nuclear weapons in their homes? Yes, but I'd support an amendment changing that. Allowing exceptions to blanket prohibitions against infringements is a dangerous precedent. Laws don't mean anything when arbitrary exceptions are allowed without going through the same legislative process. When the Constitution doesn't reflect modern needs (like to recognize non-white males) it needs to be changed not ignored. Interesting theoretical construct. Except the differentiation isn’t arbitrary. The distinction between firearms and nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons along with others is based on arbitrary versus non-arbitrary effects, i.e., discriminate versus non-discriminate weapons. A firearm can be used in an exceedingly discriminatory manner, i.e., only hit the intended target, whereas NBC effects are indiscriminate (unless you're a Russian dissident being jabbed w/a ricin pellet containing umbrella tip). That’s the fundamental distinction … & a pretty important one, imo. (There is no non-arbitrary rational to distinguish between private and non-private property,but it’s a pretty important one too.) It’s a distinction made by groups of people coming to conclusions over long periods of time to make decesions on governance. Restrictions on use of CW & BW pre-date the 20th Century, e.g., Strasbourg Agreement of 1675, Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868, Brussels Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War of 1874. And differentiations were not limited to Europe: the Manu Smrti, an ancient foundation of Hindu law (BCE), prohibited the use of “treacherous weapons,” such as weapons “barbed, poisoned, or the points of which are blazing with fire.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #88 April 11, 2008 QuoteEver hear of this outmoded concept called "personal responsibility"? You may have to do some pretty intense searching, though...it's vanishingly rare these days.Would you be happy for that principal to apply to explosives, heavy ordnance, biological/chemical weapons etc in private hands? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #89 April 11, 2008 QuoteIs the NRA still looking for a replacement? I think this guy wants the job. I imagine most women who looked at that attachement nearly fainted over the pure sexiness of the scene. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #90 April 11, 2008 Quote Quote Is the NRA still looking for a replacement? I think this guy wants the job. I imagine most women who looked at that attachement nearly fainted over the pure sexiness of the scene. I'm sure that's what he's thinking. Gonna be damned hard for him to get a job when his potential employer digs that one upAnd I do apologize for posting it. I've been up since 4:12 this morning and it made me laugh out loud when I saw it. Still does Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #91 April 11, 2008 QuoteIs the NRA still looking for a replacement? I think this guy wants the job. Doesn't he post on here?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #92 April 11, 2008 Quote Is the NRA still looking for a replacement? I think this guy wants the job. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doesn't he post on here? If you name a name, it should result in a ban...unless it's true. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misaltas 0 #93 April 12, 2008 QuoteIt says arms. Synonym for weapons. No exclusions specified - firearm, nuclear, chemical, or biological. Sure, but that doesn't mean the constitution allows it or doesn't. Not much more than words. Ultimately a majority opinion from the scotus decides what "keep and bear arms" means. And each generation's scotus can define it differently. Oh, and back to Chuckie H... My favorite quote is "You maniacs! You blew it up! God, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
auburnguy 0 #94 April 12, 2008 QuoteI want a gatlin gun mounted on my front porch to keep stray kids and pets out. If you have the money I can tell you how to make it happen, completely legally. However it costs hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars and strong political connections to keep the ATF from harassing you. Edit to add: Charlton Heston was a great man, weather you loved him or hated him you have to have respect for the guy."If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way." - Homer Simpson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #95 April 12, 2008 Quote Charlton Heston was a great man, weather you loved him or hated him you have to have respect for the guy. No, I don't.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
auburnguy 0 #96 April 12, 2008 QuoteQuote Charlton Heston was a great man, weather you loved him or hated him you have to have respect for the guy. No, I don't. You silly hippie!"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way." - Homer Simpson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
