stuckinsocal
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 116
So how do I have the right to keep and bear arms except for the ones that have certain features that the government bans? It's like saying that I have the right to freedom of speech unless I say something against government laws or policies. I either have the right or I don't. Gun control is not about protecting people, saving lives or any other BS "it's for our safety" argument that people come up with.
The OP's argument is the exact same argument that people use to say that handgun bans, concealed/open carry bans are not unconstitutional; "we're not infringing on your rights, we're just saying that you can't do it in certain places and that there have to be 'reasonable' reastrictions on it". The right to keep and bear arms means that I can have whatever arms I want, carry them wherever and whenever I want. And it also means that I can have them in any configuration I want whether it's having guns painted bright pink, having kittens painted onto them, disguised as a belt buckle, or having guns with skulls painted onto them. Prohibiting me from owning guns that have bayonet lugs IS unconstitutional because you're saying that I CAN'T own any guns with bayonet lugs.
That's exactly what's happened here in California. I can't own semi automatic rifles with pistol grips and detachable magainzes. The idea that it's for public safety is just pure and simple BS, and any sane gun owner wouldn't disagree. But to say that it's not unconstitutional is also untrue. How can you say that I have the right to own guns, but then say that it's perfectly legal for me to be prohibited from owning certain guns with specific features. ANY rule/law that prohibits people from owning or carrying ANY type of firearms they choose at ANY time and at ANY place is an infringment on the 2nd Amendment. Anything different than that is the anthesis of the 2nd Amendment, and if we can say that the 2A doesn't really mean what it says, why can't we say that the 1st, 3d, 4th, or any other ones don't really mean what they say?
In post #71 you wrote "This country was founded based on Liberty, not Libertarianism." Well, that's not you really mean. What you meant is that this country was founded on Democracy, and not Independence. Does it make sense that I completely misconstrued what you wrote in plain English? Of course it does, as it should; you wrote that sentence in plain English and is understandable by anyone who has a basic understanding of the English language. Yet, that's exactly what you're doing with the 2nd Amendment. You're saying that it doesn't really mean that I have the right to keep and bear arms; instead, I only have the right to keep and bear arms that the government approves. Either you're just not understanding the Constitution, or you're a troll.
The OP's argument is the exact same argument that people use to say that handgun bans, concealed/open carry bans are not unconstitutional; "we're not infringing on your rights, we're just saying that you can't do it in certain places and that there have to be 'reasonable' reastrictions on it". The right to keep and bear arms means that I can have whatever arms I want, carry them wherever and whenever I want. And it also means that I can have them in any configuration I want whether it's having guns painted bright pink, having kittens painted onto them, disguised as a belt buckle, or having guns with skulls painted onto them. Prohibiting me from owning guns that have bayonet lugs IS unconstitutional because you're saying that I CAN'T own any guns with bayonet lugs.
That's exactly what's happened here in California. I can't own semi automatic rifles with pistol grips and detachable magainzes. The idea that it's for public safety is just pure and simple BS, and any sane gun owner wouldn't disagree. But to say that it's not unconstitutional is also untrue. How can you say that I have the right to own guns, but then say that it's perfectly legal for me to be prohibited from owning certain guns with specific features. ANY rule/law that prohibits people from owning or carrying ANY type of firearms they choose at ANY time and at ANY place is an infringment on the 2nd Amendment. Anything different than that is the anthesis of the 2nd Amendment, and if we can say that the 2A doesn't really mean what it says, why can't we say that the 1st, 3d, 4th, or any other ones don't really mean what they say?
In post #71 you wrote "This country was founded based on Liberty, not Libertarianism." Well, that's not you really mean. What you meant is that this country was founded on Democracy, and not Independence. Does it make sense that I completely misconstrued what you wrote in plain English? Of course it does, as it should; you wrote that sentence in plain English and is understandable by anyone who has a basic understanding of the English language. Yet, that's exactly what you're doing with the 2nd Amendment. You're saying that it doesn't really mean that I have the right to keep and bear arms; instead, I only have the right to keep and bear arms that the government approves. Either you're just not understanding the Constitution, or you're a troll.