Well It's The Offseason And It's Slow

[Southieinnc]

AS I stated previously, if you have taken a position on one side of the fence, you will NOT convince anyone on the other side to jump over that fence.

You can state all of your facts but they will be countered with opposing facts.

Just agree to disagree and move on. OR take the argument to the Politics Forum.

Only New England Patriots' disagreements are acceptable in this forum.

You are making a very good point here.
We all knew when we started this discussion it would go this way. Didn''t we?
We are capable of having sensitive discussions here. We have proved it.
Does that mean we should?

I'd like to add one thing here before we end this discussion.
I prefer explosives over guns. I learned how to make them at the library when I was young.
Now, you can't read the literature that tells you how. It has been banned.
Was that a good thing or is it bad?

 

[YankeeRebel]

You are making a very good poit here.
We all knew when we started this discussion it would go this way. Didn''t we?
We are capable of having sensitive discussions here. We have proved it.
Does that mean we should?

I'd like to add one thing here before we end this discussion.
I prefer expolsives over guns. I learned how to make them at the library when I was young.
Now, you can't read the literature that tells you how. It has been banned.
Was that a good thing or is it bad?

It's really only bad when people become obtuse or argument semantics. We can never argue opinion it's just not possible.

But on another note I have decided to identify as an African American, Trans Women W/ Lesbian tendencies. This way I still can get as much coochie as I want, I can pee in whichever bathroom is most readily available, and if there are reparations i'll get my cut. Not sure what my pronouns are yet.

 

[cheerupcharlie]

Guns are for pussies. Real men use fist.

 

[Southieinnc]

Not sure what my pronouns are yet.

It?

 

[Southieinnc]

It's really only bad when people become obtuse or argument semantics. We can never argue opinion it's just not possible.

But on another note I have decided to identify as an African American, Trans Women W/ Lesbian tendencies. This way I still can get as much coochie as I want, I can pee in whichever bathroom is most readily available, and if there are reparations i'll get my cut. Not sure what my pronouns are yet.

I'm starting a home for crippled, widowed orphans.
I'm starting to take contributions.
Your name will be prominently displayed on the wall next to the front door.

 

[nefansince75]

What's not true?

That you are granted the right to any armament by the second amendment.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

That you are granted the right to any armament by the second amendment.

Sure.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Can you highlight the text where it excludes any particular type, style or size?

 

[Yankee Traveler]

That you are granted the right to any armament by the second amendment.

Where you are wrong is the second amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms.
It prohibits the government from infringing on the right.

 

[nefansince75]

Where you are wrong is the second amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms.
It prohibits the government from infringing on the right.

If you have the right to a pea shooter that fulfills your right to bear arms. Also, you aren't a people, you are a person. Conditions can be put on persons with out it infringing the group (people is a class of persons and not multiples of persons). This isn't just semantics, it the true definition. While people IS commonly used as multiple persons, the constitution uses the term "persons" when it refers to multiple persons.

 

[BigKen]

The thing that everyone seems to grapple with, is a document that was written by the smartest men of that time period trying to write a document that all property owning. tax paying, white men could live by being applicable.

Every weapon at that time had to be loaded by hand. Only the wealthy didn't have to hunt to survive.

For a document that was written 250 years ago to still apply today is incredible. Those smart guys didn't want it to be screwed with and made amendment adoption a pain in their ass to get everyone to agree with. Such as the discussion in this forum and any discussion about Bill Belichick.

8^)))

 

[nefansince75]

The thing that everyone seems to grapple with, is a document that was written by the smartest men of that time period trying to write a document that all property owning. tax paying, white men could live by being applicable.

Every weapon at that time had to be loaded by hand. Only the wealthy didn't have to hunt to survive.

For a document that was written 250 years ago to still apply today is incredible. Those smart guys didn't want it to be screwed with and made amendment adoption a pain in their ass to get everyone to agree with. Such as the discussion in this forum and any discussion about Bill Belichick.

8^)))

Hunting and economic abilities had nothing to do with the second amendment. It's exclusively a measure to ensure the government can't disarm as a means of maintaining control.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

If you have the right to a pea shooter that fulfills your right to bear arms.

And if I have a Barret .50 it satisfies the right. And If I have 14 Barret .50's it satisfies it as well. Because that is how it is written.

Also, you aren't a people, you are a person.

I am a person. I am one of the people. The right is granted to me.

Conditions can be put on persons with out it infringing the group (people is a class of persons and not multiples of persons).

Conditions put on the second amendment are infringements.

This isn't just semantics, it the true definition.

No, that's your interpretation.

While people IS commonly used as multiple persons, the constitution uses the term "persons" when it refers to multiple persons.

The "People" in the second amendment refers to individuals.

 

[nefansince75]

I am a person. I am one of the people. The right is granted to me.

The "People" in the second amendment refers to individuals.

Yes, you are a person and no you are not one of the people. There is only one people in the constitution and that is the American people, the entirety of American population.

The "people" in the constitution does not refer to individuals. It refers to a single group and the group as a whole can be granted rights that don't necessarily apply to all members within the group... Much like the collective bargaining agreement the players union has with the NFL, every individual can't negotiate certain privileges on their own.

That's a big crux of the confusion. The writers refer to individuals as persons, and the populous as people. However, in ordinary conversation (which the constitution is not) people seems to be the more proper term for the plural of person. Further, people is derived from the Latin populous meaning the entire group of individuals. Therefor YT can be excluded specifically from owning a gun without it being counted as a restriction for the entire population.

In a perfect world I'd like you to keep and enjoy your guns while being part of the solution to keep everyone save from guns within the wrong hands. Instead we have politicians using it as a platform to pander. Knowing it's an imperfect world I still don't want your gun. I just want to keep discussing how you can keeps yours while also discussing how to keep them from the wrong hands.

Trust me on this, add too much restriction to gun ownership and I'll be the first calling it out as a violation of the second amendment. However some restriction is not barred.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Yes, you are a person and no you are not one of the people. There is only one people in the constitution and that is the American people, the entirety of American population.

The "people" in the constitution does not refer to individuals. It refers to a single group and the group as a whole can be granted rights that don't necessarily apply to all members within the group... Much like the collective bargaining agreement the players union has with the NFL, every individual can't negotiate certain privileges on their own.

That's a big crux of the confusion. The writers refer to individuals as persons, and the populous as people. However, in ordinary conversation (which the constitution is not) people seems to be the more proper term for the plural of person. Further, people is derived from the Latin populous meaning the entire group of individuals. Therefor YT can be excluded specifically from owning a gun without it being counted as a restriction for the entire population.

In a perfect world I'd like you to keep and enjoy your guns while being part of the solution to keep everyone save from guns within the wrong hands. Instead we have politicians using it as a platform to pander. Knowing it's an imperfect world I still don't want your gun. I just want to keep discussing how you can keeps yours while also discussing how to keep them from the wrong hands.

Trust me on this, add too much restriction to gun ownership and I'll be the first calling it out as a violation of the second amendment. However some restriction is not barred.

There have already been plenty of restrictions.
Even with concealed carry permits I'm unable to carry in certain places. In some areas you must be of a certain age. You may have had to take a safety course. You can't modify your weapon. Limited magazine capacity...

Where does it stop is the question?

Again it's no the laws WRT to firearms. It's much deeper starting at home and continuing the the judicial system.

 

[nefansince75]

There have already been plenty of restrictions.
Even with concealed carry permits I'm unable to carry in certain places. In some areas you must be of a certain age. You may have had to take a safety course. You can't modify your weapon. Limited magazine capacity...

Where does it stop is the question?

Again it's no the laws WRT to firearms. It's much deeper starting at home and continuing the the judicial system.

The better question might be "where does it start"? My comments thus far have on been in regard to what the second amendment actually promises and not the current state of restrictions, or what restrictions there should be.

Do you need to be in those places that won't let you carry? Do you need to carry in those places? I don't carry at all, should I not be at that place either?

 

[YankeeRebel]

The biggest issue is getting people to admit there is a gun control issue in America. People know it, people know what assault rifles are and how they are used, people know the mass killing are a lot easier with fully automatic weapons, people know it's to east to get these weapons, for the most part they just don't give a shit about other people at not as much as they do their political stance.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Yes, you are a person and no you are not one of the people. There is only one people in the constitution and that is the American people, the entirety of American population.

The "people" in the constitution does not refer to individuals. It refers to a single group and the group as a whole can be granted rights that don't necessarily apply to all members within the group... Much like the collective bargaining agreement the players union has with the NFL, every individual can't negotiate certain privileges on their own.

That's a big crux of the confusion. The writers refer to individuals as persons, and the populous as people. However, in ordinary conversation (which the constitution is not) people seems to be the more proper term for the plural of person. Further, people is derived from the Latin populous meaning the entire group of individuals. Therefor YT can be excluded specifically from owning a gun without it being counted as a restriction for the entire population.

In a perfect world I'd like you to keep and enjoy your guns while being part of the solution to keep everyone save from guns within the wrong hands. Instead we have politicians using it as a platform to pander. Knowing it's an imperfect world I still don't want your gun. I just want to keep discussing how you can keeps yours while also discussing how to keep them from the wrong hands.

Trust me on this, add too much restriction to gun ownership and I'll be the first calling it out as a violation of the second amendment. However some restriction is not barred.

It does not refer to individuals because there are not specific individuals that it applies to.

It applies to every individual.

I am one of the people because I am an individual.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

The biggest issue is getting people to admit there is a gun control issue in America. People know it, people know what assault rifles are and how they are used, people know the mass killing are a lot easier with fully automatic weapons, people know it's to east to get these weapons, for the most part they just don't give a shit about other people at not as much as they do their political stance.

Assuming you fat fingered a T instead of a Y...

1) Fully Automatic weapons are not easy to get.
2) When was the last time fully automatics were used in any crime in America?

 

[YankeeRebel]

Assuming you fat fingered a T instead of a Y...

1) Fully Automatic weapons are not easy to get.
2) When was the last time fully automatics were used in any crime in America?

Not easy to get legally.

And I should have said semi or fully automatic weapons. My point in all this is simple, and it's just my opinion so it cannot be argued. There are a lot of mass killings in America and they are not historically being carried out with clubs and knives. Guns of any kind are way to accessible in America. And it's my opinion that the govt needs to take a look at and amend the 2nd amendment. It's way past due and part of the problem. But even if they put hardcore restrictions of weapons and muntiions purchases it would not matter, it's too late, people are to well stocked and the black market is flooded. We just need to accept the mass killings are as much a part of America and the NFL and just as widely accepted

 

[BigKen]

As long as any military has automatic weapons, they will be snuck out, stolen and sold to people outside of the military. That's just a fact of life.
The only reason that gangs or crazies don't have, Missiles, Cannons. 30 MMs or nuclear weapons is that they are just too damn heavy to carry and too big to hide under a coat.