I understand it fine, and I understand from whence the sentiment arises (hint, it's not innate, it's a cultural tradition) What YOU fail to understand is that no one is proposing such a thing.
and literally has a vagina. Here's another example. When these photos were taken, one of these individuals had a penis and one had a vagina. I call on @Federal Farmer to pick which one would make any man nervous if spotted following his wife, daughter, mother, sister, into a public restroom. Don't wait for the translation - answer.
I for one did not question your sentiment even from the jump - I thought it was a bad analogy but I understood what you were going for and don't file you at all with the hateful lot. And I don't completely dispute your point - I was only disputing the trope that you could just spread a "law abiding" blanket over all gun owners and call it a win. There really are some good arguments for gun ownership freedoms (and, I think, good ones for much better regulations)...i just don't think that's one of them.
And? The funny thing about both those groups is that they are essentially having a type of moral panic over what other people "might" do in spite of all evidence showing that the risk is very low. Good on you for making that assumption that all pro-gun-rights people are also bathroom bill supporters, though.
Country Singer on Continued Gun Violence: Blame the NRA Eric Church, who played in Vegas 2 nights before shooting, says massacre 'wrecked' him
Church's statements are intellectually muddled. On the one hand he says he's a "Second Amendment guy" and that "the right to bear arms is non-negotiable," but on the other he says the shooter shouldn't have been able to amass an arsenal. What solution can he offer that isn't ineffectual or that doesn't negate the first two statements? Wants background checks? The shooter passed them. Wants to get rid of the "gunshow loophole?" The shooter didn't use it. The NRA was willing to concede to ban bump stocks, but, smelling blood in the water, the Democrats tried to get much more, such as weapons and magazine bans, which are non-negotiable. I'd like to know why there were no police sharpshooters on the scene. Paddock should've been able to empty at most one magazine before he started taking return fire.
The Second Amendment isn't absolute. If it were you'd be entitled to keep a small nuclear arsenal in your back yard. The Second Amendment is pretty vague. It provides a general right to bear arms and talks of a well armed militia. There are and have always been limitations to it's scope, both in terms if supplemental law and regulations and the very fact that as a legal instrument itself it can also be altered and redefined. With that in mind the answer to your question is obvious. He is saying that people should have the right to bear arms but that a disproportionate number of high powered weapons is not necessary and no more needed than the "right" to have a functioning tank in your driveway or my little nuke example above.
Not going down this rabbit hole again. The Second Amendment is about small arms, the weapons that an individual militiaman could use to secure a free state. AR-15s and such are that type of weapon. No, it isn't. It unambiguously states that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that this right shall not be infringed. As a matter of law, it's settled by Supreme Court ruling: the 2nd Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear firearms for their own protection as well as to preserve their free state and other traditionally lawful purposes. Although the shooter had many weapons, he could still only use one gun at a time. The outcome wouldn't have been any different had the shooter been limited to a much smaller number of guns. IIRC, the shooter did not even fire most of the guns that were in the room.
Find me the part of the 2nd Amendment that doesn't mention militia and the security of a free state. What arms would a militiamen use to secure a free state? You might be able to read this as MORE than small arms but it's absurd to read it as LESS. If you want to argue for nerve gas and nuclear warheads, be my guest, but that's not MY position and it's not been the position of the courts.
No one said anything about no small arms. I spoke of the number. Thank you for basically admitting it says nothing about small arms though, which validates my original post. As for your question, if you are going to hold onto the provision in today's American society than it stands to reason it applies to the kinds of arms that exist today. With the government of the day possessing of sophisticated military weapons such as bombs, tanks and nukes, it strands to reason a militia could only stand a realistic chance of overthrowing a tyrannical regime if it had access to at least some military power greater than small arms. That you yourself are trying to argue that it only applies to small arms, when it says nothing of the kind, means you are already accepting restrictions on it's scope. So if you accept restrictions on it's scope why is it unreasonable for Frank to be of the opinion that restrictions on the quantity of high powered small arms might be worth discussing without the 2nd Amendment being undermined? You yourself accept restrictions but it doesn't stop you arguing as if your rights aren't currently infringed, when really they are to some degree if you take the Amendment literally.
Oh, good grief. It doesn't say "guns" or "firearms" either, but it is universally understood to include those. ANSWER MY QUESTION: WHAT KIND OF ARMS WOULD AN INDIVIDUAL KEEP AND BEAR THAT COULD BE USED BY A MILITIAMAN TO SECURE A FREE STATE? That's the heart of my argument. Answer it and we can proceed. That's a more sensible argument. I don't share that position, but if you want to press that case, be my guest. Arms that are kept and borne by individuals are small arms, not ordnance. Again, it's clear from ALL evidence that it means small arms, including the language of the amendment itself. And if you argue that because I accept "no nukes" I should therefore accept "no small arms," that's absurd because the clauses of the amendment are then completely divorced from each other. If the government can't infringe on that right because a militia is necessary, then it follows inescapably that arms suitable for militia use are protected. And, indeed, that was one of the upshots of the Miller SCOTUS case way back in the 30s. Some limitations on Constitutional rights are simply off the table; others could be acceptable only under the judicial standard of "strict scutiny," meaning the restriction must (1) further a compelling government interest and (2) be as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve that interest. A law restricting the number of guns owned would fail this test because you can't show how merely owning many guns made someone--e.g., the Las Vegas shooter--more deadly. I only accept restriction if "arms" is not taken as "small arms." Since I take "arms" to mean "small arms," then I don't accept restrictions. Your argument is that since I won't read the 2nd as absurdly expansively as you want me to do, that I'm in favor of infringement. I don't read it as expansively as you want me to, and so I see no infringement in not being able to own nerve gas or nuclear warheads.
That's part of the reason why I dropped my membership years ago. I couldn't commit to all the shootings on my days off.
Technically, it isn't, but uncle sam isnt going to sell you one, and if you manage to make your own you will either wind up with a job or commit suicide via multiple gunshots to the back of the head.
Nope. It’s been illegal since 1949, and the govt has had a monopoly and licensing regime for all uranium in the country since 1954.
The NRA has, for more than a decade, worked to obstruct the enforcement of existing gun control laws. We have now learned that they have also broken several additional laws to co-operate with foreign governments to subvert American elections. All of these illegal acts serve to put guns in the hands of murderers, enabling them to murder.
here's a question, what kind of arms could an individual keep and actually secure a free state? AR-15 vs A-10? pfah! your M1 Garand vs the gov't M1 Abrams? Your romantic notion of being on armed guard for freedom is a fantasy. Also, where does individual future tech fit in? Will phasers be ordained as an individuals right?
