Sutherland Springs, TX church shooting

In other words, a limit.

Yes, because they know that their whole point falls apart as soon as the issue even comes up. Which is why you answer as you just did, rather than formulating any substantial counter-argument.

Yep. If the going rate is $100, someone will offer a $90 service.

Competition: it's the fucking balls.

I'm going to limit the number of books you can read by limiting the number of camels you can own.

I do not make the claim that ANY right is unlimited--I explicitly state that the natural limits are the rights of others--but a right to own X cannot entail a restriction from owning X.

And so their argument would...if anyone made that argument. But they don't.

The 2nd Amendment right is about small arms, weapons an individual wields that would be of use in a militia against tyrannical government. Nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles, and nerve gas are not small arms. So, please go ahead and restrict their ownership. I see no conflict with the 2nd Amendment on that account.

No. Therefore we offset each other and the status quo is maintained.

If we're going to go through all that, just start banning the sale of certain classes of guns. It would be easier and more honest.

yes, fragments can do a lot of damage, I get that. But fragments don't make you bleed out quickly if they don't damage high blood flow areas. Pain & incapacitation & long term damage? No doubt about it, but with adrenalin pumping if he wasn't shot enough times in the right places to "turn out the lights" whether from bleeding or concussive effects, he is very much still a threat if armed or in a functional vehicle, no matter what he was shot with.

That would unfairly infact people in lower incomes and most people in large cities would be locked up. Is that what you want?

As far as I'm aware, you're the only one talking about personal log books.

I guess I'm missing your point. You don't need a personal log book in order to make a UBC work with regards to being able to trace a firearm's transfer history. A gun could be sold twice, two dozen, or two hundred times and law enforcement would be able to trace each sale through the NTC.

So just as a ferinstance, if a guy had, say, four old junk pistols handed down in the family since his grandfather's time that don't even work; A 1939 Dutch East Indies Army Luger and a Jap Arisaka rifle that his father brought back from WWII; a Walther PP that his father got god knows where; his great-uncle's old .38 revolver and .22 gallery rifle; a 1903 Springfield that his Dad got from the VFW for parades; and his great-great-grandfather's Civil War musket (speaking for a friend), all of which has just been hanging around in the gun safe for decades, you'd want to see him locked up for life?

I was given a skin flute at birth and I play it very well. Lots of practice. I can play anything I like and normally I am solo. On occasion I let others play it or play a duet. I have played with a few symphonies, but they are normally quite chaotic as none of them ever had a conductor. I must say you should keep your instrument clean because a dirty one can be hard if you know what I mean. I have never played Beethoven, but I once played at the crack of dawn and in june and April. I liked playing in April.

WOW!

Just read this guy escaped from a mental institution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cs-in-church-massacre/?utm_term=.1c143f85de0e

The gunman who killed more than two dozen people in a small church outside San Antonio on Sunday had a string of troubling episodes in recent years, including an escape from a mental health facility in 2012 after he was caught sneaking guns onto an Air Force base “attempting to carry out death threats” against military superiors, according to a police report.

What the fuck!

Yeah yeah, red flags, warning signs, yadda yadda.

Yes they do, you are currently responding to several people who make that argument.

Who is making that argument?

Are you suggesting that yourself and Mars Defense Perimeter are seriously claiming that the 2nd Amendment applies to nuclear weapons and ordnance?

No one with half a fucking brain would, unless they're being intentionally obtuse.

I’m impressed to hear you’ve hung onto your flute after all these years. Figured you might have cut ties and swapped it for a cajón long ago. (You know... the box-shaped percussion instrument played by slapping the front or rear faces with the hand or stick.)

Do your aids help you turn pages while you’re fingering difficult passages?

Excuse me, I should've said "anyone who is genuinely on the gun-rights side." The only ones making this argument are not sincere, they're just trying to build a straw man.

Arms is all but universally recognized as meaning small arms, arms that can be carried on the person and wielded by an individual. As a practical matter, Supreme Court rulings make it clear this is the case. If you want to argue that the 2nd protects nukes and nerve gas, be my guest, but I don't make that claim.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If I were running a well regulated militia in 2017, I would be lucky to have some nuclear weapons on hand. But anyway, what did the Founders mean by 'arms'? Muskets, but not cannons? Going by a strictly literal interpretation, why shouldn't nuclear weapons be available to the public? Unless you want to say future Supreme Court decisions have rendered such ideas invalid. In that case, you agree with judicial review--which is not Constitutional, technically.

Where does the line get drawn? Nowhere in the 2nd does it say ordnance is prohibited. No one would seriously advocate people having access to nukes, but why should they have access to an AK-47? Both were beyond the Founders' imaginations and could never have been planned for. Is an AK okay because it's still a gun? Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify 'arms' as 'guns'. It's literally right there in the text.

Ah, so @Paladin is a proponent of judicial review. I'll have to remember that.

Jesus, how many fucking times do we have to go over it?

You can make that argument. I don't.

And, in any event, the right expressed in the 2nd is "to keep and bear," indicative of small arms.

One cannot "bear" (carry) a cannon. A cannon is not a small arm.

Going by the strictly literal interpretation, only small arms are protected.

My opinion--one that is consistent with text, law, context, Founders' writings, historical interpretation, tradition, and common sense--is that the 2nd protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear small arms. I cannot speak to any future Supreme Court rulings; only to those that have already been made that support my point of view.

No, it's not in the text of the Constitution, but I would argue that it logically follows from the Constitution.

If I were writing the Constitution today, I would include judicial review as one of the Supreme Court's powers.

But the 2nd does say that people's small arms cannot be.

Again, if you want to make the argument that the 2nd protects nukes and nerve gas, be my guest. That's not an argument I'm making.

Because an AK-47 is a small arm, suitable for use by militia. A nuke is not. Even if you think a nuke would be useful, again, it's NOT a small arm and therefore not protected.

The muzzle-loading flintlock was the AK-47--a military weapon--of its day. Does your right of free speech not extend to the Internet?

"Arms" is not only guns. It encompasses all small arms: rifles, shotguns, pistols, knives, swords, nunchaku, clubs, etc. Small arms are the type that individuals keep and bear.

Serious question: were militias allowed to keep cannons as part of their arsenal?

I have you pegged as a reasonable and consistent intellectual. With that in mind, I can only assume that the logic expressed here means that the First Amendment only protects speech that is done without electronic amplification and only protects "the press" as long as it consists only of newspapers produced on moveable type mechanical printing presses. There is no way that the Founding Fathers could have imagined telephones, TV, radio, the internet, and all forms of modern communication.