They have a new Dave.  Joe.  He'd love to have an AW right now. 

Yeah, I know.  Couldn't remember his name.  From the parts of the one or two episodes I've seen, Cody and Joe are going to have a rocky honeymoon learning how to get along with each other's methods, more so than Cody and Dave did.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2013 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 7:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2013 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Most people take less invasive when invasive is inevitable.    I think something is inevitable.  Ineffective but inevitable.

I'd say that taking HCAW away will be more effective at limiting crimes committed with HCAW than making people register them.

You seem to think people tote HCAW around and commit crimes.   I don't think that's true.

The certainly won't if they are taken away. They probably still will if they are registered...the Sandy Hook gun would have been registered by Lanza's mother if that had been a requirement. But she still would have had it for him to take.

And a ban of AW doesn't take them off the street.  It takes them off the legal street.

Aurora shooter, you think he gave a **** about illegal?

Well ****, why ban anything if you can't guarantee it will be 100% effective. I mean killers don't give a **** about murder laws.

Now you're catching on.   'bout ******* time.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2013 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/29/2013 7:43:00 PM (view original):
The right to K&B arms isnt a throw away. You need to show a clear reason to take it away.

There is not evidence to support any gun ban would help. I am no talking about loose theories, I am talking about actual evidence.

My points about gun effectiveness is to show the idea that banning any type of weapon will somehow prevent a crime or even make it less severe isnt based on logic.

The end point is the same people who have always wanted to ban private arms are at it again, and it will only harm America.

Why do you believe the "right to keep and bear arms" MUST be interpreted as the "right to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms"?

Do you believe that if HCAWs are banned, that the government's next step will be to send tanks to your neighborhood to oppress you?

I realize that there can be resonable restrictons on the 2nd, as with any right. I oppose the idea that gun control reduces crime so any gun ban is illogical,

If the US didnt have its nuclear detterent in the 70s would it have made nuclear war more or less likely? Answer of course is more.

So the freedom our arms guarantee could be threatened by an elimination of the arms.

What if no one had nuclear weapons in the 70's? Would it have made nuclear war more or less likely?

If you have some way to make all the guns in the world dissapear we can discuss that.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2013 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/29/2013 7:43:00 PM (view original):
The right to K&B arms isnt a throw away. You need to show a clear reason to take it away.

There is not evidence to support any gun ban would help. I am no talking about loose theories, I am talking about actual evidence.

My points about gun effectiveness is to show the idea that banning any type of weapon will somehow prevent a crime or even make it less severe isnt based on logic.

The end point is the same people who have always wanted to ban private arms are at it again, and it will only harm America.

Why do you believe the "right to keep and bear arms" MUST be interpreted as the "right to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms"?

Do you believe that if HCAWs are banned, that the government's next step will be to send tanks to your neighborhood to oppress you?

Again, you're falling into the fallacy that everyone who favors gun control continues to fall into, and most opponents just let it go.  Even the courts have done it.  The 2nd amendment doesn't just protect the "right to keep and bear arms," it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Limitation of arms is infringment.  I don't see how you can argue that it isn't.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/30/2013 3:43:00 AM (view original):
If you have some way to make all the guns in the world dissapear we can discuss that.

BOOM!!!!!   swampy delivers a knockout punch.

Why doesn't anyone understand this? 

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/30/2013 3:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2013 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/29/2013 7:43:00 PM (view original):
The right to K&B arms isnt a throw away. You need to show a clear reason to take it away.

There is not evidence to support any gun ban would help. I am no talking about loose theories, I am talking about actual evidence.

My points about gun effectiveness is to show the idea that banning any type of weapon will somehow prevent a crime or even make it less severe isnt based on logic.

The end point is the same people who have always wanted to ban private arms are at it again, and it will only harm America.

Why do you believe the "right to keep and bear arms" MUST be interpreted as the "right to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms"?

Do you believe that if HCAWs are banned, that the government's next step will be to send tanks to your neighborhood to oppress you?

Again, you're falling into the fallacy that everyone who favors gun control continues to fall into, and most opponents just let it go.  Even the courts have done it.  The 2nd amendment doesn't just protect the "right to keep and bear arms," it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Limitation of arms is infringment.  I don't see how you can argue that it isn't.

That all comes down to interpretation.

Joe Citizen can legally own weapons such as a handgun, shotgun, shooting rifle.  I'd be surprised if Joe Citizen can legally own a nuclear weapon.

Has his "right to keep and bear arms" been infringed upon if he cannot own a nuclear weapon?

To me, "infringed" means that the government cannot make the process so onerous that Joe Citizen finds it nearly impossible to legally own any "arm".

Besides, there are already a number of restrictions on ownership.  Can a convicted murderer, who has been freed after serving his time, legally own a gun? (I honestly don't know for sure, but would think not).  If not, then has his Second Amendment right been infringed upon?

I assumed "infringed" meant what it means according to the dictionary.  Given the sentence structure, that would mean something like "encroached upon."  Any limitation on my right to own weapons would encroach upon that right.  So yes, the fact that I can't buy a nuclear weapon if I have the means and inclination to do so is a violation of the intent and phrasing of the 2nd Amendment.  I have already stated previously that I am willing to accept infringements (!) on the 2nd Amendment if it is demonstrably in the best interest of the general public to create them.  I am, in fact, in favor of banning at least all fully automatic weapons from private ownership.  That said, I don't pretend it isn't a violation of the 2nd Amendment.  I'm just accepting that certain things simply don't make enough sense to justify the risks, and the Constitution needs to be, in a sense, altered through interpretation.  There is plenty of precedent for things like this, so it's not a huge problem for me.  But I still see it as a clear violation of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, so I think you do have to be able to win the battle over whether the benefits outweigh the harms of the Constitutional violation rather than just saying "maybe things would be a little bit better if we violate your 2nd-Amendment rights."  I don't think that adequately satisfies the burden of proof required.

I see the Constitution as a living document, one that contains a basic set of fundamental underlying principles, that are meant to define both our "rights" and our system of government.

It needs to be open to interpretation within the context of the times.  The Founding Fathers could not have anticipated in 1787 what the United States would be like 225 years into the future, much as we cannot today anticipate what our country will be like, and the issues it will be facing, in the year 2238.

You want and need to adhere to the spirit of the fundamental principals, but you cannot take a hard line "yes/no" literal interpretation of a document that really has so little details as it's written. 

Posted by tecwrg on 1/30/2013 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/30/2013 3:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2013 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/29/2013 7:43:00 PM (view original):
The right to K&B arms isnt a throw away. You need to show a clear reason to take it away.

There is not evidence to support any gun ban would help. I am no talking about loose theories, I am talking about actual evidence.

My points about gun effectiveness is to show the idea that banning any type of weapon will somehow prevent a crime or even make it less severe isnt based on logic.

The end point is the same people who have always wanted to ban private arms are at it again, and it will only harm America.

Why do you believe the "right to keep and bear arms" MUST be interpreted as the "right to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms"?

Do you believe that if HCAWs are banned, that the government's next step will be to send tanks to your neighborhood to oppress you?

Again, you're falling into the fallacy that everyone who favors gun control continues to fall into, and most opponents just let it go.  Even the courts have done it.  The 2nd amendment doesn't just protect the "right to keep and bear arms," it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Limitation of arms is infringment.  I don't see how you can argue that it isn't.

That all comes down to interpretation.

Joe Citizen can legally own weapons such as a handgun, shotgun, shooting rifle.  I'd be surprised if Joe Citizen can legally own a nuclear weapon.

Has his "right to keep and bear arms" been infringed upon if he cannot own a nuclear weapon?

To me, "infringed" means that the government cannot make the process so onerous that Joe Citizen finds it nearly impossible to legally own any "arm".

Besides, there are already a number of restrictions on ownership.  Can a convicted murderer, who has been freed after serving his time, legally own a gun? (I honestly don't know for sure, but would think not).  If not, then has his Second Amendment right been infringed upon?

No one is opposed to resonable restrictions.

What we are opposed to is the idea that banning guns reduces crime so it is a public safety issue.

And as it has been pointed out "Keep and bear arms" means own and carry.

You cannot carry a fighter plane or a tank or even a piece of field artillary that would have been available in 1776.