Big FREEDOM! Stuff > Current Events
Gun Control, and the 2nd Amendment
EricMGrant:
Lots of people are in favor of gun control. Lots of people are in favor of restricting guns under certain circumstances. Not many people are discussing that the 2nd amendment says ARMS (not limited to guns,) and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED; meaning any and all laws restricting or banning anything that can be considered a weapon is Unconstitutional.
Adam should make a video showing people being such huge supporters of the 2nd amendment, then suddenly placing limitations on it when it's interpreted for them.
lukekale64:
its BS i honestly dont understand how they think gun control will work. look at britain for fuck sake. guns are banned there. most cops in the uk are not even allowed to carry weapons and they have higher gun crime rates than america!.
this video is one of the best i have seen for explaining the stupid idea of gun control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
doubleplusgood:
It's going to be a critical issue come 2020. If Hillary wins this year, I hope she is unable to appoint ultra liberal SC justices with a "living document" interpretation re: the 2nd amendment. Any one else and I'm confident we'll be able to last the full first term without any further judicial reinterpretation.
That being said...
--- Quote from: EricMGrant on June 06, 2016, 07:22:12 PM ---Lots of people are in favor of gun control. Lots of people are in favor of restricting guns under certain circumstances. Not many people are discussing that the 2nd amendment says ARMS (not limited to guns,) and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED; meaning any and all laws restricting or banning anything that can be considered a weapon is Unconstitutional.
--- End quote ---
Obviously, it hasn't been interpreted by the courts this way. I have a fair amount of Constitutional knowledge and I'm mostly in your corner, but I much prefer arguing for the merits of gun ownership on the basis of a right to self-defense. It aligns perfectly with the NAP and there's plenty of good data to support it as a matter of pragmatism.
Devil's advocate, because if you are going to argue that the Constitution grants the right of the people to possess ANYTHING that could be classified as a weapon, and that is not to be infringed by the State in any way, this is what you will hear from anti-gun statists...
You cool with individual citizens having access to WMD?
lukekale64:
Its our right to keep and bear arms. No matter what. Our founding fathers gave us that right. To protect ourselves, especially from the government and whoever tries to infringe on our constitutional rights.. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon it is. Anybody can make a wmd from shit you buy at different stores.
doubleplusgood:
--- Quote from: lukekale64 on June 14, 2016, 07:59:38 PM ---Its our right to keep and bear arms. No matter what. Our founding fathers gave us that right. To protect ourselves, especially from the government and whoever tries to infringe on our constitutional rights.. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon it is. Anybody can make a wmd from shit you buy at different stores.
--- End quote ---
This is the kind of answer I was scared of. I think that is framing the discussion in a way that we will lose. Hell, even I'm not convinced you could make an argument where I'd agree the 2nd amendment could be interpreted as granting individual citizens the right to bear WMD. now, being logically consistent, I wouldn't support the use of force to prevent someone from making one on their own property, but I sure as hell wouldn't live next to them and I'm not sure how a free society would regulate such things.
Our rights do not come from the first ten amendments, or the founding fathers, they are de facto inherent in all human beings. This isn't Ron Paul's campaign in '08 or '12. Kokesh is a totally new dynamic with a very different platform. Let's move on from the Constitutional arguments and look towards poking holes in statism's logic/sense of morality.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version