OtherGround Forum >> Piers Morgan gets owned over gun control

Pretjah -

alxholic - So what do I need to pack to protect myself from an Obama drone attack?

an attack golden eagle

OSUkinkledmyBEAVERhole -

Obviously they both have the interpretation wrong, this guy has it right....

Pretjah - 

alxholic - So what do I need to pack to protect myself from an Obama drone attack?

an attack golden eagle

Pretjah - 

you asked the question with an implied answer....so if the supreme court never ruled a canon (the most damaging weapon of their time) is illegal to own, why would they ever put a limit on it?

so banning some form of weapon makes the supreme court ruling "relevant" to banning what other weapon of the original time period????  or maybe you meant to use a different word than that?

Pretjah - 

so banning some form of weapon makes the supreme court ruling "relevant" to banning what other weapon of the original time period????  or maybe you meant to use a different word than that?

ksac - 

Pretjah - 

so banning some form of weapon makes the supreme court ruling "relevant" to banning what other weapon of the original time period????  or maybe you meant to use a different word than that?

I'm not sure what you're getting at and suspect you may be confusing my position as well I may be confusing your position.

I don't believe the 2nd amendment applies only to muskets nor do I believe it should apply to all types of weaponry. To make either argument seems ridiculous to me.

"nor do I believe it should apply to all types of weaponry. To make either argument seems ridiculous to me."

this is the portion i'm asking you about....

i asked if the supreme court (or founding fathers) deemed it fit to ban private owners from owning a canon (the largest form of weapon during their time period).  the answer is no.

you said they should ban some forms of weapons to be relevant.

i'm asking what that would be relevant to...

419 - If the 2A only protects muskets, then the 1A only protects pamphlets.

ksac - 

Pretjah - 

so banning some form of weapon makes the supreme court ruling "relevant" to banning what other weapon of the original time period????  or maybe you meant to use a different word than that?

I'm not sure what you're getting at and suspect you may be confusing my position as well I may be confusing your position.

I don't believe the 2nd amendment applies only to muskets nor do I believe it should apply to all types of weaponry. To make either argument seems ridiculous to me.

UGCTT_Benwahwah IsABenevolentGod - 

ksac - 

Pretjah - 

so banning some form of weapon makes the supreme court ruling "relevant" to banning what other weapon of the original time period????  or maybe you meant to use a different word than that?

I'm not sure what you're getting at and suspect you may be confusing my position as well I may be confusing your position.

I don't believe the 2nd amendment applies only to muskets nor do I believe it should apply to all types of weaponry. To make either argument seems ridiculous to me.

I think we're all on the same team here

ksac - Oh. Modern advanced weaponry. Great examples are nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; which go way beyond small/medium projectile weapons.

you said to STAY RELEVANT...

the root of RELEVANT is RELATE...what would that ruling STAY RELEVANT relate to??? is the question

what precident or legal rulings would they use for banning those weapons, when they didn't feel a need to ban the largest weapons of their time period?

i get what weapons you would want "banned"  and in theory i agree...no private citizen needs to own them...however i dont see how they are 2amend issues

Pretjah - 

ksac - Oh. Modern advanced weaponry. Great examples are nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; which go way beyond small/medium projectile weapons.

 

you said to STAY RELEVANT...

 

the root of RELEVANT is RELATE...what would that ruling STAY RELEVANT relate to??? is the question

 

what precident or legal rulings would they use for banning those weapons, when they didn't feel a need to ban the largest weapons of their time period?

 

 

i get what weapons you would want "banned"  and in theory i agree...no private citizen needs to own them...however i dont see how they are 2amend issues

shaqitup - All this "our founding fathers said" bullshit really has to stop.

Should a person be able to have a gun in their own home? Sure why not.

But imo there should be strict regulations in place, and mental health checks should be a must.

I don't know much about gun laws in the states so i'm kind of just talking out of my ass, but from what i gather they are rather easy to obtain.

yes and how does BANNING WEAPONS make it relevant?  the 2nd amend gives citizens the right to own them, the founding fathers and supreme court never deemed it neccisary to ban canon.

you are not creating relevance...youre creating a NEW RULING.

JitsuGuy - The intention of the 2nd Amendment is to protect yourself from tyranny in government. You can't do that if they have you out-gunned.

JitsuGuy - The intention of the 2nd Amendment is to protect yourself from tyranny in government. You can't do that if they have you out-gunned.

exactly

which is why the "nuclear and chemical weapons argument" has no bearing on the 2nd amendment issue.

Combat Sport Fan - i think its pretty clear bearable arms means small arms (rifles, handguns)

not cannons.

except it wasn't illegal to own a canon

Pretjah - 

yes and how does BANNING WEAPONS make it relevant?  the 2nd amend gives citizens the right to own them, the founding fathers and supreme court never deemed it neccisary to ban canon.

 

you are not creating relevance...youre creating a NEW RULING.

Pretjah - 

Combat Sport Fan - i think its pretty clear bearable arms means small arms (rifles, handguns)

not cannons.

except it wasn't illegal to own a canon

Cars kill way more people a year........

Wheres the outrage on cars?

ksac - 

Pretjah - 

yes and how does BANNING WEAPONS make it relevant?  the 2nd amend gives citizens the right to own them, the founding fathers and supreme court never deemed it neccisary to ban canon.

 

you are not creating relevance...youre creating a NEW RULING.

You seem to have a better grasp of this than I do. Why do you think the supreme court would ever put limits on what types of weapons citizens can own? Or do you even believe that there should be limits?