RKBA and self defense

[anygunanywhere]

If your assertion were true, or considered plausible by many, we wouldn't want or need any laws whatsoever. Is that what you are advocating? No law at all?

That is not what I am saying. I am not against all laws and I am not saying that laws do not help maintain the order.

Laws against murder, theft, or any other act that defines the boundaries of our actions with one another are fine and would be just as effective if there were not one single infringement on our RKBA or ability to defend ourselves.

Tell me exactly how any restriction on RKBA or self defense helps us. Tell me how my second amendment permission card helps me. Tell me how it makes me a better person. Tell me how it makes me better than the man who lives in Vermont or Alaska who puts on their handgun with no permit.

Anygun

[aardwolf]

If we can't trust a person to responsibly use a handgun because of age or mental defect or intoxication or sociopathy, I don't see how we can trust them with something much more dangerous like a car... or the right to vote.

[anygunanywhere]

Woa there Anygun. The 2A applies to U.S.A. only. Not sure you can take this argument world wide.

Tell those dead millions that the same creator who we claim gave us our rights failed to give them theirs. Since the rest of the "free world" infringes on human rights then we should just ignore that fact. It is just reasonable restrictions.

The nuke and other WMD should not be covered by the 2A. The right to bear arms for SELF DEFENSE does not and should not include weapons designed as first strike. Nukes only apply as defense on the world scene in order to claim a form of balance. If someone attacks you personally with a nuke, you no longer need a self defense weapon.

I would really like to totally drop this nukle discussion. The OP did mention nukes, but since most here own firearms, we really should just address the firearms infringement. If I could have all the acces to anything up to and including grenades and other explosive devidces I would be happy. Having dealt with nukes, it is a little tedious.

Absolutist apparently feel like felons should regain their rights after release. Hogwash, felons deserve to lose more rights than they do today. The line must be drawn some where. They were born with the same rights as you and I, however through their own actions they have lost some of their rights. They make their bed allow them to sleep in it.

The only thing that prevents you from being a felon is the stroke of a pen - you know - the reasonable restriction thing that some seem to think are fine.

The absolutist approach must also include the mentally ill, those dependent on drugs, alcoholics, and have no age limits. Can you really be serious about this? Can you actually claim to be a absolutist. A person with alzeimer's has the right to self defense, or do they? Have you seen the affects of this disease? I have. Have you been in a 8x8 room with a addict on PCP? I have. Have you ever disarmed a drunk? I have. Have you ever sat in a room with a relative in fear that that individual may go off the deep end, produce their legally carried handgun and start shooting your family members? I have.

You can't legislate morality, a sense of right and wrong, nor sanity. That is the world we live in. If you have issues with someone you know who has a firearm then you have to deal with it.

Who determines sanity? The only thing that prevents you from being insane is the stroke of a pen - you know - the reasonable restriction thing that some seem to think are fine.

This absolutist view of no permits, no qualification, no rules, and no laws just does not hold water with me.

So, you would not have voted to ratify the original BOR? What permits, qualifications, rules, and laws are you willing to accept or restrictions of the rest of your rights since the second amendment is infringeable? I am certain that the next POTUS will come up with some radical new crisis to help you along towards giving up some more of your rights.

Anygun

[pt145ss]

If we can't trust a person to responsibly use a handgun because of age or mental defect or intoxication or sociopathy, I don't see how we can trust them with something much more dangerous like a car... or the right to vote.

We don't trust felons and under age children with the right to vote.

[anygunanywhere]

We don't trust felons and under age children with the right to vote.

I am not sure, but some states might allow felons to vote legally, and all states allow felons to vote if you are democrat.

Anygun

[pt145ss]

I would really like to totally drop this nukle discussion. The OP did mention nukes, but since most here own firearms, we really should just address the firearms infringement. If I could have all the acces to anything up to and including grenades and other explosive devidces I would be happy. Having dealt with nukes, it is a little tedious.

Is that where you draw your line on reasonableness? Are you saying It reasonable to allow grenades and explosives but not reasonable to allow nukes? If it is not reasonable to allow nukes, how do you suggest eliminating nukes from personal possession without writing legislature that infringes on 2a?

[bdickens]

Alright, I'll agree to your right to have nukes if you agree to my right as a man to have babies!I could keep the fetus in a box!
And you could get Milt Sparks to make an IWB holster for your nuke.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Not being armed and being arrested under false charges and having other rights denied has indeed denied my right to due process in the past.

Was there ever a court finding that your due process rights were denied? If not, that is merely another assertion on your part.

[frankie_the_yankee]

In an earlier post you said.....

Tell me where any infringement, any law, any legislation has ever prevented anything.

And I responded....

If your assertion were true, or considered plausible by many, we wouldn't want or need any laws whatsoever. Is that what you are advocating? No law at all?

To which you replied.....

That is not what I am saying. I am not against all laws and I am not saying that laws do not help maintain the order.

To me, that's "moving the goalposts".

Laws against murder, theft, or any other act that defines the boundaries of our actions with one another are fine and would be just as effective if there were not one single infringement on our RKBA or ability to defend ourselves.

Sure. But we have different opinions as to what constitutes "an infringement".

That's why we have courts - to sort disagreements like that out.

Tell me exactly how any restriction on RKBA or self defense helps us.

I've stated this many times. Establishing the passenger cabins of airliners as "sterile" (i.e. gun free) zones cut hijackings from the level of two or three per month as was common in the late 60's and early 70's almost to zero. This is a historical fact and not open to debate.

And it is just one example.

Tell me how my second amendment permission card helps me. Tell me how it makes me a better person. Tell me how it makes me better than the man who lives in Vermont or Alaska who puts on their handgun with no permit.

Anygun

I don't know if it helps you. But I think it helps society as a whole by raising the "cost" to criminals for illegally carrying and making it easier for LE to identify those who are.

At the same time, it doesn't bother me a bit. The inconvenience and cost involved are miniscule.

That's good enough for me.

[aardwolf]

Alright, I'll agree to your right to have nukes if you agree to my right as a man to have babies!I

Go ahead. I don't know any State or Federal laws against it.

On the other hand, there are hundreds if not thousands of State and Federal laws infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

[aardwolf]

I don't know if it helps you. But I think it helps society as a whole by raising the "cost" to criminals for illegally carrying and making it easier for LE to identify those who are.

At the same time, it doesn't bother me a bit. The inconvenience and cost involved are miniscule.

That's good enough for me.

An easier solution is to have a green border on someone's DL or ID if they have a clean background. That means they can buy and carry guns with no additional hassle in all 50 states and DC. People with a criminal record get a red border on their DL or ID and they're not allowed to carry or vote. The inconvenience and cost to the law abiding would be even less than your solution and the benefits to society are much greater. Everybody wins... except the bad guys.

That's good enough for me.

[anygunanywhere]

I would really like to totally drop this nukle discussion. The OP did mention nukes, but since most here own firearms, we really should just address the firearms infringement. If I could have all the acces to anything up to and including grenades and other explosive devidces I would be happy. Having dealt with nukes, it is a little tedious.

Is that where you draw your line on reasonableness? Are you saying It reasonable to allow grenades and explosives but not reasonable to allow nukes? If it is not reasonable to allow nukes, how do you suggest eliminating nukes from personal possession without writing legislature that infringes on 2a?

I am not saying eliminate nukes, I am not saying that I support or oppose anti-nuke legislation, I am not drawing the line on reasonableness pertaining to nukes.

I would like to discuss pertinent topics and possession of nukes will not be an issue for quite some time, I believe. There are more pressing issues regarding the 2A and self defense than purchasing nukes.

Anygun

[anygunanywhere]

To me, that's "moving the goalposts".

How am I moving the goalposts? I never said I wanted a society free from the rule of law. If you can find where I said that please produce the example. If not, find another argument.

Sure. But we have different opinions as to what constitutes "an infringement".

That's why we have courts - to sort disagreements like that out.

That is where we differ - once again, by definition. Go ahead, roll over on your back and show your belly. Give up your rights to reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws, but be sure you give in only to the gun laws that meet your definition. Once you find that place be sure and let me know where it is so I can avoid it, because the ones making the rules will never meet your definition either. You do have some sense of what excessive infringement is because you do carry and exercise your rights as the current ruling class allows, but as I have pointed out, all it would take is a stroke of a pen to eliminate it one more time. Would that exceed your definitioin of infringement?

I've stated this many times. Establishing the passenger cabins of airliners as "sterile" (i.e. gun free) zones cut hijackings from the level of two or three per month as was common in the late 60's and early 70's almost to zero. This is a historical fact and not open to debate.

And it is just one example.

Yes, Frankie, I am already aware of your terror in the skies argument. I have a solution for that too but it would not be popular reading for some on this board and would probably result in my expulsion. Some would find it amusing.

I don't know if it helps you. But I think it helps society as a whole by raising the "cost" to criminals for illegally carrying and making it easier for LE to identify those who are.

At the same time, it doesn't bother me a bit. The inconvenience and cost involved are miniscule.

That's good enough for me.

You will have to explain exactly how the CHL legislation has raised the cost to criminals because I just don't see that side of the issue. Good idea for another thread.

Anygun

[bdickens]

John Lott has a whole book dedicated to that: More Guns, Less Crime.

[srothstein]

Actually, I can afford an artillery piece.

Really? You've got a spare $1.5million laying around in a bank account that you can go buy a 105mm Howitzer with like the one I saw pretzeled up after it went out the back of a C130 without a functioning parachute? where do you work? Are they hiring?

No, but that is not the only artillery available either. Some of it costs quite a bit less. For example, these punkin chunkers are artillery and the projectile could easily be changed to something harder (say a bowling ball) for a kinetic energy weapon, or to an explosive round.

But if you like 105's, This company has a self propelled 105 listed for sale in his British catalog. I sincerely doubt it is anywhere near $1.5 million either. It is probably more than I am willing to pay right now though (price on request usually means more than i want to pay). From what I found doing a google search for military vehicles, I would guess about 60,000 and you need to get the import permits.