Jump to content
TedderVision
Shiggy

I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

Recommended Posts

I believe literally that the 2nd amendment guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms and that right should not be infringed upon by the government with full or partial bans of weapons.

 

Change my mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shiggy said:

I believe literally that the 2nd amendment guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms and that right should not be infringed upon by the government with full or partial bans of weapons.

 

Change my mind. 

Of any weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bruce said:

Of any weapon?

 

Yes.......Nowhere in the 2nd amendment or an subsequent constitutional amendment does it specify "only some types of guns"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Shiggy said:

 

Yes.......Nowhere in the 2nd amendment or an subsequent constitutional amendment does it specify "only some types of guns"

But why just guns? If we're taking a literal reading of the 2nd amendment it says "arms" which is short for "armaments." Therefore, shouldn't citizens have a right to possess all weapons? Do I have a constitutional right to a cruise missile? Anthrax? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bruce said:

But why just guns? If we're taking a literal reading of the 2nd amendment it says "arms" which is short for "armaments." Therefore, shouldn't citizens have a right to possess all weapons? Do I have a constitutional right to a cruise missile? Anthrax? 

 

with all due respect......you are going to the most extreme example.......which is fallacious argumentation. 

Secondly.......There is a letter to then President James Madison in which the question was raised "could merchant ships carry cannons in order to defend themselves from  pirates and the British?".........The answer from Madison and congress (as seen in the letter) was a resounding YES. That is what the founding fathers and congress intended the 2nd amendment to mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shiggy said:

 

with all due respect......you are going to the most extreme example.......which is fallacious argumentation. 

Secondly.......There is a letter to then President James Madison in which the question was raised "could merchant ships carry cannons in order to defend themselves from  pirates and the British?".........The answer from Madison and congress (as seen in the letter) was a resounding YES. That is what the founding fathers and congress intended the 2nd amendment to mean. 

The point of that line of questioning is to say that a "literal" reading of the 2nd amendment is unreasonable. There are lines that any rational society draws. So, if I may be so bold, the question we should really be asking is where is that line? Denying that the line exists and saying you're advocating for a literal reading of the 2nd amendment is illogical.

 

I think we're in agreement so far, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruce said:

The point of that line of questioning is to say that a "literal" reading of the 2nd amendment is unreasonable. There are lines that any rational society draws. So, if I may be so bold, the question we should really be asking is where is that line? Denying that the line exists and saying you're advocating for a literal reading of the 2nd amendment is illogical.

 

I think we're in agreement so far, yes?

 

1) No....there is not a line. The founding fathers were very smart. They knew that weaponry would evolve just like it had from the cavemen all the way to 1790. That is why ( as I pointed out before, President James Madison sent the letter of marque allowing merchant ships to carry cannons in order to defend their own ships. 

The founding fathers would have expressly written in a line if they had intended to.........but they didn't

What the founding fathers DID intend, was to make sure that the government had a natural check and balance against tyranny (just as the founding fathers did in gathering weapons against the British.......including cannons.

2) Anthrax is not a weapon, it is a chemical compound. 

3) Using the example of a cruise missile was an appeal to the extremes which is a logical fallacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having trouble following you, let's slow down a bit please. What does Madison's letter have to do with the 2nd amendment? The letter seems to just authorize the seizure of British ships, I'm not sure how it's relevant to your argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bruce said:

I'm having trouble following you, let's slow down a bit please. What does Madison's letter have to do with the 2nd amendment? The letter seems to just authorize the seizure of British ships, I'm not sure how it's relevant to your argument?

Because it allowed civilian ships to carry cannons which proves my historical claim that the founding fathers were not just talking about small weaponry (my answer to your extreme example of cruise missiles)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this @Bruce..........Do you believe that the 1st amendment it absolute? Do you believe that you have an absolute right to speak your opinion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shiggy said:

Because it allowed civilian ships to carry cannons which proves my historical claim that the founding fathers were not just talking about small weaponry (my answer to your extreme example of cruise missiles)

If the "right" to carry cannons was already covered in the Constitution, why would Madison need to say as such? For the record, I still don't see where he explicitly made that claim but I'll go along with it to see where it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shiggy said:

Let me ask you this @Bruce..........Do you believe that the 1st amendment it absolute? Do you believe that you have an absolute right to speak your opinion? 

Of course not. As with everything in life there are limitations. But that's not the issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bruce said:

Of course not. As with everything in life there are limitations. But that's not the issue here.

 

Really? What constitutional limits are there on freedom of speech?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bruce said:

If the "right" to carry cannons was already covered in the Constitution, why would Madison need to say as such? For the record, I still don't see where he explicitly made that claim but I'll go along with it to see where it goes.

 

Because you were saying there was "a line" on the limits of the 2nd amendment......and I showed that such an argument is historically false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shiggy said:

 

Because you were saying there was "a line" on the limits of the 2nd amendment......and I showed that such an argument is historically false. 

I'm not sure you did show that but I'm willing to listen to a more in depth explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bruce said:

Again, not the issue here but since you asked https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

What you quoted........(through Wikipedia I might add) is not a limit on free speech itself.....but rather the call to action by use of speech. 

There is a difference between saying that there is a limit on freedom of speech itself (for example a list of banned/prohibited words or phrases) and saying that certain use of speech as a call to action (IE inciting violence) is prohibited. 

So the correct answer is no............there is NOT any limit on freedom of speech because the founding fathers did not PLACE any limit on freedom of speech. If they had wanted to, they would have expressly written it into the first amendment. 

THEREFORE: it is unhistorical and inaccurate to make any claim that there is a limit to any other right in the bill of rights INCLUDING the 2nd amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shiggy said:

 

What you quoted........(through Wikipedia I might add) is not a limit on free speech itself.....but rather the call to action by use of speech. 

There is a difference between saying that there is a limit on freedom of speech itself (for example a list of banned/prohibited words or phrases) and saying that certain use of speech as a call to action (IE inciting violence) is prohibited. 

So the correct answer is no............there is NOT any limit on freedom of speech because the founding fathers did not PLACE any limit on freedom of speech. If they had wanted to, they would have expressly written it into the first amendment. 

THEREFORE: it is unhistorical and inaccurate to make any claim that there is a limit to any other right in the bill of rights INCLUDING the 2nd amendment. 

Which amendment do you want to talk about? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruce said:

Which amendment do you want to talk about? 

 

Perhaps I was not clear enough. Is it that you do you not understand the comparison I was making? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shiggy said:

 

Perhaps I was not clear enough. Is it that you do you not understand the comparison I was making? 

We can go down this road if you'd like, it just seems like a roundabout way to make your point. Mind explaining this for me? It seems to me that eliminating the relationship between using words and the effect those words have is at best naive and at worst very dangerous. All due respect, of course.

"There is a difference between saying that there is a limit on freedom of speech itself (for example a list of banned/prohibited words or phrases) and saying that certain use of speech as a call to action (IE inciting violence) is prohibited"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×