It's Over: CBS News Poll 50% of Americans want Gun Control Laws Less Strict or Kept As They Are

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Here is something to digest:

First, a few modern definitions of “arms” present themselves. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.”18 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”19

Source: Brain Shavings
Seems to rule out nukes.
There are mentions of what 'arms' meant back in 1787 at the link also.

edit on 28-3-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

"especially firearms" does not make it "exclusively" firearms.

Nukes can be taking in hands in the case of a suitcase nuke...so by your Black's Law definition that would be classified as an "arm".

then you retreat back to what it meant in 1787...which brings you to the problem of wanting to own an AR15 when nothing of that sort existed back in 1787.

Your source clearly says that some of the founders did not simply mean guns when they talked of "arms".

Jefferson seemed to think that “arms” included even full-blown naval guns, a category that included some of the most powerful weapons of his day. In fact, he understood the militia mentioned in the Constitution to include units of infantry, cavalry and artillery.54 Therefore, he must have imagined few limits (if any) on the kinds of arms needed to equip that militia of private citizens.

The fact remains that you and any other sane pro-gun person is fine with limiting and regulatin "arms". What you and others are trying to do now is redefine the meaning of the word "arms" to fit your argument so you don't have to admit that you are for limiting and regulating which "arms" individuals are allowed to own.

It is pure intellectual dishonesty on your part. You want to be SOOOOOO pro 2nd amendment, you don't want to admit that it is the logical thing to restrict certain "arms". You want to try to redefine the word "arms" to only include those things that you want to allow ownership of...it is just 100% pure intellectual dishonesty.

You are lying to yourself so you can claim you aren't opposed to the 2nd amendment on any level.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

edit on 28-3-2013 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by xedocodex


You obviously have never talked to a gun supporter. Firearm supporters aren't so short-sighted enough to let emotions rule them. They realize the person committed the shooting and thus the crime, not the firearm. Wake up.

reply to post by xedocodex

Nukes can be taking in hands in the case of a suitcase nuke...so by your Black's Law definition that would be classified as an "arm".

Yes, and if I were one of the nutcases that think nukes should be in the household inventory of weapons, I would build or buy one... and keep it in my house.

But I am not. So I will exact my right to have a semiautomatic rifle even if they are banned, because that is what we do if we believe that we have a right.

If I am being intellectually dishonest, then I believe that you are being intellectually dishonest if you believe that you have a first amendment right regarding any paper processed on machines, pens or pencils designed after 1787. The same goes for computers, telephones, radio transmitters or printing presses that came after that date.

What is important to remember is this: You can disarm yourself, you can try to disarm all the bad guys, you can futilely try to disarm governments... but you will not be successful.

You will be the sheep that passed the law forbidding wolves to eat meat.
You will be eaten in your sleep, comfortable that your law protected you.

reply to post by xedocodex



Muskets (smooth bore) were used by the British. While the US also used muskets, the US had the advantage because we used the "modern" American long rifle and it was superior to the musket. The "modern" American long rifle was the AR-15 of it's time . . . times change; technology changes . . . no, it would not just apply to muskets, as there were already advances on smooth bore guns. So by your definition, nothing invented or set in motion after 1787 can be applied to the Bill of Rights? Also, I never said "arms" were guns only. I said typically refers to "general infantry weapons", so knives, bows, etc. Which means can be carried and used by one person.

Without conceding I'm going to use your definitions and what you want arms to be defined as . . .

a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm

Merriam-Webster

Since you assume I agree with your hyperbole . . . which I don't btw . . . this would still not rule out AR-15 from being "protected".

weapons and explosives used in fighting wars

Cambridge

This definition would squash the ol' "military weapons of war" that is so liked by your kind . . . as being "protected" arms and still apply to the AR-15.

Artillery:

1 : weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2 : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

Merriam-Webster

So . . . even using your definitions and terms . . . Yes, Nukes should be protected under the 2nd. I'm okay with that. The US has nukes, as does many other countries and yet no one has used them. Why? Common sense and decency. Is detonating a regular bomb in a city illegal? Yes. That is the crime. Not possesion of such. Your hyperbole, which I won't argue with at all, fails to take the reasonable tract of price, acquisition, and regulatory bodies into account (on purpose I suppose) when assuming that the "average" person would have them anyway.

There are millions of AR-15's in this country, with more being sold everyday, yet they only account for less than 50 crimes (not deaths) a year. They are chambered in .223, which is third lowest on the caliber and power scale for all firearms (hardly the "high powered" killing machines that the gov keeps promoting). They are not military grade as they are semi-auto, just like a mini-14, 9mm pistol, or 10/22 carbine (the 9mm being the largest caliber of all four examples).

Your entire argument rests on hyperbole, emotion, and moving the goal posts of standard defintions/intent to fit your argument. NOBODY, except the emotionally driven anti-gun lobby try to conflate heavy artillery, bombs, and missles with "arms" under the 2nd. Your agenda and tactics are clear and easy to spot . . . Despite your protestation, it is a logical fallacy because you are comparing weapons of mass destruction to the 3rd lowest power rifle you can buy (meanwhile skipping over the hundreds of firearms more destructive and powerful) just due to the emotional sway presented by their looks. So, whether my (and any other reasonable logic driven individual) or your strict (and emotionally driven) dictionary definition . . .it's still a logical fallacy and still a fail.

Since you brought up "education" before, I assumed you knew which logical fallacies you were employing . . . I assumed wrong, so here you go.

Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make decisions.

Which of course leads directly into this . . .

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also, this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including

Argumentum ad passiones
Yes . . . fail.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Nukes can be taking in hands in the case of a suitcase nuke...so by your Black's Law definition that would be classified as an "arm".

Yes, and if I were one of the nutcases that think nukes should be in the household inventory of weapons, I would build or buy one... and keep it in my house.

But I am not. So I will exact my right to have a semiautomatic rifle even if they are banned, because that is what we do if we believe that we have a right.

If I am being intellectually dishonest, then I believe that you are being intellectually dishonest if you believe that you have a first amendment right regarding any paper processed on machines, pens or pencils designed after 1787. The same goes for computers, telephones, radio transmitters or printing presses that came after that date.

What is important to remember is this: You can disarm yourself, you can try to disarm all the bad guys, you can futilely try to disarm governments... but you will not be successful.

You will be the sheep that passed the law forbidding wolves to eat meat.
You will be eaten in your sleep, comfortable that your law protected you.

You are dodging the question.

Do you believe nukes...or tanks...or surface to air missles should be protected under the 2nd amendment???

It's a simple yes or no answer.

You are dodging it because if you say no, then you are admittedly fine with limiting the 2nd amendment. If you say yes, then you are admittedly a psycho who thinks it should be legal for people to own nukes.

Take your pick.

declaring victory with 50%

priceless


lol

reply to post by solomons path

Yes, Nukes should be protected under the 2nd.

That is all you needed to say.

And now you can let others judge your sanity and decide if they want to stand with you on such a ridiculous claim.

No fallacies...just cold hard truth that you tried your hardest to dodge and ignore.

You are one of the few insane people that are willing to claim that nukes should be protected so that you don't have to say you are open to limiting your precious little 2nd amendment.

So good for you...you are sticking to your guns (pun intended)...but you are showing yourself to be less than logical and quite on the insane side since you want nukes to be legal for individual ownership.

reply to post by xedocodex


If you read your earlier reply to me, you already told me that I was a sane, pro-gun person that is fine with limiting the second amendment.

The second amendment is already limited. I would think that you are aware of that face. I can't own a nuke, I can't own nerve gas... hell, I can't even own a switchblade where I live.

Yes, the second amendment is limited.

But it seems it is not limited enough for you.

reply to post by xedocodex


More argumentum ad passiones, in the form of ad hominem.

Do you ever employ logic or you just a walking fallacy.

I used your reasoning, or lack there of, to show even then your argument relies on emotional sway and you use that to set your "insane" trap?

Nothing but straw men/red herrings from you and still no logical reason to prohibit any type of arm.

Great job if your intent is to win a high school election.

ETA - my personal feelings on nukes were never stated... Just my feelings based on your straw man hyperbole.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex

 

If you read your earlier reply to me, you already told me that I was a sane, pro-gun person that is fine with limiting the second amendment.

The second amendment is already limited. I would think that you are aware of that face. I can't own a nuke, I can't own nerve gas... hell, I can't even own a switchblade where I live.

Yes, the second amendment is limited.

But it seems it is not limited enough for you.

Yes, it is already limited...and props to you for supporting the limiting of the 2nd amendment.

So now all that is left is a disagreement on where that limitation stops.

This disagreement should not make one a traitor, or un-American, or an enemy of those that think the current limitations are enough.

In short, pro-gun people should stop branding themselves as pro 2nd Amendmenet super Americans. Most of them, like you, already support the limiting of the 2nd amendment. So let's drop the hyperbole of those that are pro-gun control are anti-American traitors.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by xedocodex

 

More argumentum ad passiones, in the form of ad hominem.

Do you ever employ logic or you just a walking fallacy.

I used your reasoning, or lack there of, to show even then your argument relies on emotional sway and you use that to set your "insane" trap?

Nothing but straw men/red herrings from you and still no logical reason to prohibit any type of arm.

Great job if your intent is to win a high school election.

I'm using logic and defintions to show you how claiming to be a 100% advocate of no limits on the 2nd amendment will be viewed as insane to society. There is no emotional sway...it is simple truth that our society will view you as insane if you think indivduals should be able to own nukes. That is the REALITY of the situation here...nothing emotional about it.

I'm sorry that you don't like it....but it is true.

You have two choices...support limitation on the 2nd amendment or be the insane person that advocates for private ownership of nukes. If you have a third option...please share it with us.

Don't be mad because you have backed yourself up into a corner.

reply to post by xedocodex


Let me make it real short for you. I am pro second amendment. Just because it is limited does not mean that I do not support it.

Why do you wish to further limit the second amendment?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Let me make it real short for you. I am pro second amendment. Just because it is limited does not mean that I do not support it.

Why do you wish to further limit the second amendment?

I also support the second amendment...I just have the opinion that we still need to do a little more to regulate and limit it. Just becaue I have the opinion that we need a little more regulation and limitation does not mean that I do not support it, just like you supporting the current limitations doesn't mean you don't support the 2nd.

I think we need more limitations and regulations because we don't have great control over who can buy what and I believe there are currently guns being sold that have no use other than kill massive amounts of people.

reply to post by xedocodex

So you want to save lives.

Am I correct with that? Is that the reason that you believe that there need to be further restrictions?

reply to post by xedocodex


Mad? You're ridiculous, my emotional state isn't tied to a meaningless online message board.... I haven't backed into any corner. You have a faulty premise based and a false analogy between the world's most destructive device and the third lowest powered caliber on the market. Their is no logic in that jump. There is no logic in prohibiting an item responsible for less than 2% of gun related deaths over the last 10 years and not semi-auto hand guns, which are used more and capable of greater damage.

You've simply used circular reasoning and argument from emotion to make yourself feel smart about a position that lacked logic out of the gate.

reply to post by xedocodex


Your assertion that the mentioned arms have no purpose other than killing large amounts of people further demonstrates your ignorance of firearems, ammunition, and their function.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex

 

So you want to save lives.

Am I correct with that? Is that the reason that you believe that there need to be further restrictions?

The goal would be to make mass shootings more difficult to pull off.

I'm under no delusions of stopping murder...and you shouldn't either. You could arm every single person with whatever gun you want...and people will still die.

However, you can make it more difficult to get the guns and ammo needed to go on a mass shooting. And you can make it easier to track to see if someone is all of a sudden massing weapons and ammo and maybe have them go through additional checks, not prevent them...just slow them down.

Allergy medicine is better regulated than guns/ammo. Fertilizer is better regulated than guns/ammo. There is no reason not to regulate guns/ammo in a more strict way than those two items.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Mad? You're ridiculous, my emotional state isn't tied to a meaningless online message board.... I haven't backed into any corner. You have a faulty premise based and a false analogy between the world's most destructive device and the third lowest powered caliber on the market. Their is no logic in that jump. There is no logic in prohibiting an item responsible for less than 2% of gun related deaths over the last 10 years and not semi-auto hand guns, which are used more and capable of greater damage.

You've simply used circular reasoning and argument from emotion to make yourself feel smart about a position that lacked logic out of the gate.

I didn't bring up the AR 15...someone else did.

I'm using definitions...because words mean things. "Arms" is any weapon...not just guns. It's a ver very simple argument from there....nukes are weapons as well...but we limit those...so the 2nd is already limited. QED.

There is no circular logic...there is no logical fallacy...there is no logical leap.

My premise is simple...the 2nd amendment is already limited and regulated. Many pro-gun people support that limitation and regulation (most don't want nukes to be legal), so the discussion should never be "do you support the 2nd amendment or not", it should be "where should we draw the line".

But the NRA and Republicans don't want that....THEY want to inject EMOTION into the discussion. They want to make it "You are either for the 2nd amendment or you are against it".

And it seems you have fallen for it to the point where you are now claiming that you support nukes under the 2nd amendment because you have drank the rhetoric so much that you feel guilty admitting that you are fine with limits and regulations of any kind on the 2nd amendment.

My logic is fine...your emotions are clouding your judgement.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Your assertion that the mentioned arms have no purpose other than killing large amounts of people further demonstrates your ignorance of firearems, ammunition, and their function.

I'm beginning to think that the issue you are having is reading comprehension.

I never said all "arms" serve that purpose...I said certain guns do. And it's true. The M134 Gatling Gun serves no other purpose but to kill many people quickly.

Or maybe you think we should allow anyone that wants one of those to have it mounted on their car???