Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 12:15:20 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What do you think of firearms?
BAN THEM ALL!!! - 5 (11.1%)
Increase cost, tax, and ownership restrictions. - 2 (4.4%)
Maintain some reasonable restrictions for safety. - 8 (17.8%)
Only semiauto weapons w/ more than 8 rd. capacity and class 3 weapons have any reason to be regulated. - 4 (8.9%)
Issue NATO grade assault rifles upon completing elementary school. - 17 (37.8%)
For those who want a rational pro-gun option: The US gov't reserves the right to ban dangerous criminals from gun ownership. Open or concealed carry is an option so long as you are qualified. Firearm taxes should be reduced, at least for American-made one - 9 (20%)
Total Voters: 45

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Second amendment ftw or gtfo?  (Read 3160 times)
mufa23
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


I'd fight Gandhi.


View Profile
May 04, 2012, 02:38:09 AM
 #21

Define "Assault Rifle".

>inb4 clips

Positive rep with: pekv2, AzN1337c0d3r, Vince Torres, underworld07, Chimsley, omegaaf, Bogart, Gleason, SuperTramp, John K. and guitarplinker
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481242520
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242520

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242520
Reply with quote  #2

1481242520
Report to moderator
1481242520
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242520

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242520
Reply with quote  #2

1481242520
Report to moderator
1481242520
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242520

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242520
Reply with quote  #2

1481242520
Report to moderator
Tuxavant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Bitcoin Mayor of Las Vegas


View Profile WWW
May 04, 2012, 02:40:49 AM
 #22

Define "Assault Rifle".

>inb4 clips

I believe the technical term is sodium chloride delivery system.

Generation Bitcoin | G+ | FB | Bitcoins In Vegas | CoinBus.com | TOR Exit Operator 1MVTPATVCKBMfALRHJsXpHfKJu7GyL7nAc
faidsaid
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 43


View Profile
May 04, 2012, 03:19:02 AM
 #23

I love how the voting list did not include a SINGLE reasonable pro-gun ownership choice. Way to try to manipulate people! The only semi reasonable option "Maintain some reasonable restrictions for safety." could be so vaguely interpreted as to destroy all guns if the legislation maker decided as such.
+1
It's so cute when they beat up off a straw man.
Love is always being able to tell your loved ones "I didn't know it was loaded."

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
― John Rogers
player3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 81



View Profile
May 04, 2012, 06:01:35 PM
 #24

Alright, sorry, I had no intention for the options to be taken word for word. I've added a new option, it's far more clear. Just remember- it's hard to include every single detail in a poll without each option having a paragraph describing each one. Each option (with the exception of #6) was meant to be more of a guideline, i.e., "what level of gun control works for you?," not so much "agree with one of these word for word."

-53
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
May 04, 2012, 06:48:55 PM
 #25

...snip...

Quote
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If someone could explain to me how regulations don't at all infringe, then I might change my mind.  Till then, I believe that American gun laws are unconstitutional.  Not that I can really do anything about it Sad

Its true.  You are absolutely right.  Americans go on about handguns being essential to freedom when a handgun is as useless as a crossbow if you are faced by a an enemy who has a tank or a drone. 

Any rational interpretation of the second amendment would start with allowing anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. 

nedbert9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

Inactive


View Profile
May 04, 2012, 08:47:35 PM
 #26

...snip...

Quote
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If someone could explain to me how regulations don't at all infringe, then I might change my mind.  Till then, I believe that American gun laws are unconstitutional.  Not that I can really do anything about it Sad

Its true.  You are absolutely right.  Americans go on about handguns being essential to freedom when a handgun is as useless as a crossbow if you are faced by a an enemy who has a tank or a drone. 

Any rational interpretation of the second amendment would start with allowing anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. 


A nuke for every every citizen!  And if one of the poorer examples of liberal - for the illegals, too!

Tuxavant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Bitcoin Mayor of Las Vegas


View Profile WWW
May 04, 2012, 10:15:10 PM
 #27


Its true.  You are absolutely right.  Americans go on about handguns being essential to freedom when a handgun is as useless as a crossbow if you are faced by a an enemy who has a tank or a drone. 

Any rational interpretation of the second amendment would start with allowing anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. 

AFIAK, Regulation is allowed because the supreme court has ruled that a right must have some level of reasonableness applied to it. Example, you have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded building. THEY (not me) have decided that nukes, cannons, full autos, etc are reasonable exceptions.

Generation Bitcoin | G+ | FB | Bitcoins In Vegas | CoinBus.com | TOR Exit Operator 1MVTPATVCKBMfALRHJsXpHfKJu7GyL7nAc
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
May 04, 2012, 10:50:46 PM
 #28


Its true.  You are absolutely right.  Americans go on about handguns being essential to freedom when a handgun is as useless as a crossbow if you are faced by a an enemy who has a tank or a drone.  

Any rational interpretation of the second amendment would start with allowing anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons.  

AFIAK, Regulation is allowed because the supreme court has ruled that a right must have some level of reasonableness applied to it. Example, you have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded building. THEY (not me) have decided that nukes, cannons, full autos, etc are reasonable exceptions.
The Supreme Court has, by bringing a level of "reasonableness," (your word, definitely not mine) completely destroyed the original intent of the second amendment.  People seem to forget that our founding fathers had just finished fighting off their government with what were state-of-the-art weapons.  The first shot was fired because the Brits were trying to seize and/or destroy the colonist's military supplies. I believe the founders wrote the second amendment to ensure that the People maintained the ability to overthrow their government by force.  Maybe we live in a different world now where this is no longer possible, but then we should either amend the Constitution to reflect this or completely tear it up because it does little to protect our rights anymore.

Tuxavant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Bitcoin Mayor of Las Vegas


View Profile WWW
May 04, 2012, 10:54:38 PM
 #29

I think there needs to be "reasonableness" factor to the way the constitution is interpreted, but I also believe that the constitution needs to be amended so that every law the government makes, at any level, must sunset after 10 years.

If a law proves to be truly needed, then they can spend their terms renewing the good ones and let the useless or bad ones fall out of the system. This prevents tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of laws to accumulate over centuries that literally obliterates the possibility of a "law abiding citizen".

Generation Bitcoin | G+ | FB | Bitcoins In Vegas | CoinBus.com | TOR Exit Operator 1MVTPATVCKBMfALRHJsXpHfKJu7GyL7nAc
drakahn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
May 05, 2012, 03:44:51 AM
 #30

I think if everyone had a gun, the people that would use them "badly" would not be around so long...

so give everyone a gun

14ga8dJ6NGpiwQkNTXg7KzwozasfaXNfEU
nedbert9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

Inactive


View Profile
May 05, 2012, 09:05:04 AM
 #31

I think there needs to be "reasonableness" factor to the way the constitution is interpreted, but I also believe that the constitution needs to be amended so that every law the government makes, at any level, must sunset after 10 years.

If a law proves to be truly needed, then they can spend their terms renewing the good ones and let the useless or bad ones fall out of the system. This prevents tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of laws to accumulate over centuries that literally obliterates the possibility of a "law abiding citizen".


Good idea, actually.  Laws being directly tied to an era of government allows for a great deal of flexibility.

Temporally representative laws for a temporally representative government!

A little too long for a bumper sticker.

Hmmm, just thought of another interesting idea.  What if rather than a sunset of temporary law, which would become a rather large administrative burden, the law would be submitted for public referendum for renewal.

Representative government craft and enact law.  The public shows it's confidence in their work with renewal referendum.  Still a large burden though.
nedbert9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

Inactive


View Profile
May 05, 2012, 09:13:37 AM
 #32

I think if everyone had a gun, the people that would use them "badly" would not be around so long...

so give everyone a gun


Liking it.  Dangerous, but liking it anyway.

They say there is wisdom in the crowd and I would venture to say that there's also justice in the crowd that can't be gained from the judicial system.

Kind of like Libertarian free markets.  Give everyone a gun and let's see what happens.  Cheesy
Tuxavant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Bitcoin Mayor of Las Vegas


View Profile WWW
May 05, 2012, 12:11:20 PM
 #33

Still a large burden though.


That's the whole point. You want the government to have this burden so it takes millennia for it to corrupt itself - it would be possible at all with this. The Framers knew very well of the problem associated with government power and trying to limiting it. But I think they underestimated it still. X year sun-setting for all levels of government is the ultimate hog tie.

Edit: And it would be that much more costly for corporations to influence the legislature too because they'd have to keep "funding" the shit heads at every cycle to keep something going.

Generation Bitcoin | G+ | FB | Bitcoins In Vegas | CoinBus.com | TOR Exit Operator 1MVTPATVCKBMfALRHJsXpHfKJu7GyL7nAc
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
May 05, 2012, 12:27:58 PM
 #34

I love how the voting list did not include a SINGLE reasonable pro-gun ownership choice. Way to try to manipulate people! The only semi reasonable option "Maintain some reasonable restrictions for safety." could be so vaguely interpreted as to destroy all guns if the legislation maker decided as such. Some people consider an unloaded gun in a locked safe reasonable safety (im not including parents with children here because that is different), but when some one breaks into your home do you think they will mind waiting while you put in the combination and load your gun? My point is the slightest restriction can be an all encompassing restriction in an instant.

if it makes you feel better im pro-gun, i had no intention of coming across as biased

The road to hell is paved with good intentions my friend.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
May 05, 2012, 12:50:54 PM
 #35


Its true.  You are absolutely right.  Americans go on about handguns being essential to freedom when a handgun is as useless as a crossbow if you are faced by a an enemy who has a tank or a drone.  

Any rational interpretation of the second amendment would start with allowing anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons.  

AFIAK, Regulation is allowed because the supreme court has ruled that a right must have some level of reasonableness applied to it. Example, you have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded building. THEY (not me) have decided that nukes, cannons, full autos, etc are reasonable exceptions.
The Supreme Court has, by bringing a level of "reasonableness," (your word, definitely not mine) completely destroyed the original intent of the second amendment.  People seem to forget that our founding fathers had just finished fighting off their government with what were state-of-the-art weapons.  The first shot was fired because the Brits were trying to seize and/or destroy the colonist's military supplies. I believe the founders wrote the second amendment to ensure that the People maintained the ability to overthrow their government by force.  Maybe we live in a different world now where this is no longer possible, but then we should either amend the Constitution to reflect this or completely tear it up because it does little to protect our rights anymore.

That is why they call The Constitution a living document. Just like George Bush Jr. said "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!", he was right. Until the people make it a living document by exercising their in-alien-able rights it is just a worthless piece of paper. If you wondered why I spelled inalienable that way it is to point out those rights can not be removed by contract or maritime law (the law of the sea), which is what most of what we know as government operates as in the form of corporations in most cases.

There was a time when common law (the law of the land) rules and legislation like The Constitution had more meaning and force. The problem is over the years the people have let the common law system wither and allowed the maritime system to practically "legislate" anything you could imagine to rob you blind, imprison, enslave, or even kill you. If the subject interests you I suggest you study the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) http://www.law.duke.edu/lib/researchguides/ucc and from multiple sources. Not everyone likes to share the real fun tricks you can use Wink

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
May 05, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
 #36


Its true.  You are absolutely right.  Americans go on about handguns being essential to freedom when a handgun is as useless as a crossbow if you are faced by a an enemy who has a tank or a drone.  

Any rational interpretation of the second amendment would start with allowing anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons.  

AFIAK, Regulation is allowed because the supreme court has ruled that a right must have some level of reasonableness applied to it. Example, you have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded building. THEY (not me) have decided that nukes, cannons, full autos, etc are reasonable exceptions.

I understand that.  But any reapsonable "militia" will be able to take out a tank or take down a plane.  Otherwise its not a "militia" its a set of "target dummies."

If the US second amendment has meaning, it must mean you are entitled to ant-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

If it doesn't have meaning, why use it to justify something as militarily useless as handguns ? Surely the case for lawful access to firearms can be made without deception ?

Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
May 05, 2012, 08:20:44 PM
 #37

Still a large burden though.


That's the whole point. You want the government to have this burden so it takes millennia for it to corrupt itself - it would be possible at all with this. The Framers knew very well of the problem associated with government power and trying to limiting it. But I think they underestimated it still. X year sun-setting for all levels of government is the ultimate hog tie.

Edit: And it would be that much more costly for corporations to influence the legislature too because they'd have to keep "funding" the shit heads at every cycle to keep something going.
While I kind of like the idea of all laws sunsetting. The problem I see is that it doesn't just make it more expensive for corporations; It makes it more expensive for EVERYONE.  This means that the corporations will still be the ones most-able to throw money at lobbyists.

the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile
May 05, 2012, 08:31:07 PM
 #38

When naughty little Americans do bad things with their guns, Mommy and Daddy have to teach them a lesson by taking their privileges away.

And if you ask why, they will respond, "BECAUSE WE SAID SO!"


deus-ex-machina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 166



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 06:10:01 PM
 #39

Actually, the 2nd amendment only allows the police to have guns. If I may:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the right of the people's police force to have weapons. Not only that, it allows ANY weapons. So really we should be getting rid of this amendment, or we could wind up getting shot for not calling a police officer "Master".
Tuxavant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Bitcoin Mayor of Las Vegas


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2012, 06:11:39 PM
 #40

Actually, the 2nd amendment only allows the police to have guns. If I may:

Sorry, the supreme court has recently ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to personal self defense.

Generation Bitcoin | G+ | FB | Bitcoins In Vegas | CoinBus.com | TOR Exit Operator 1MVTPATVCKBMfALRHJsXpHfKJu7GyL7nAc
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!