[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

If you think the founders included the 2nd amendment for the purpose of protecting hunting rights your argument makes sense. If however, you think the founders included the 2nd amendment for the purpose of keeping tyranny at bay I find your argument lacking.

If you think the 2nd A is all inclusive (simply no restrictions) do you think all of the amendments are? I know this is a gun forum and thus the 2nd A is the most talked about but I am curious how you and others feel about the others.

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

If you think the 2nd A is all inclusive (simply no restrictions) do you think all of the amendments are? I know this is a gun forum and thus the 2nd A is the most talked about but I am curious how you and others feel about the others.

Let's focus on the second for a moment. What do you believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, hunting and sporting purposes or for keeping tyranny at bay?

If the purpose is to protect hunting do we need anything other than shotguns?
If it is meant to protect us from the tyranny of our government then we should have weapons equal to that of our government. I would draw the line at individual ownership of ICBM's but I think each state should have control of one.

[kenpoprofessor]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

If you think the 2nd A is all inclusive (simply no restrictions) do you think all of the amendments are? I know this is a gun forum and thus the 2nd A is the most talked about but I am curious how you and others feel about the others.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I'm sorry, I forgot it is 2012. You're absolutely right, all your rights under the Bill of Rights should be null and void; because, after all they were written by men in silly looking wigs in the 18th century. So, I guess, you aren't allowed to have an opinion, because that opinion might be dangerous, you should expect to have law enforcement search your home at will, and there are some displaced veterans that need quartering. Afterall, it is 2012, right?

The technology for electronic surveillance has increased, so you shouldn't expect privacy in your own home. Oh, and there has been a lenghty war that has been going on longer than that pesky 1776 and 1812 thing, so there are some troops that need to be housed. Lucky for you, you have extra rooms. But, hey, as part of your patriotic duty you can sleep on the couch and the living room floor and they can have your rooms, right?

Oh, and forget not incriminating yourself, if you get picked up, because that is antiquated as well, Also, you have an unpopular religious choice, so you are going to have to attend whatever relgions the state has chosen.

I mean, for heaven's sake it is 2012 afer all.

What are you rambling about? Nice little rant there but sadly for you based on nothing I said or even implied

I did notice you did not answer any of my question though

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

What are you rambling about? Nice little rant there but sadly for you based on nothing I said or even implied

I did notice you did not answer any of my question though

You're the one that stated the Bill of Rights has an expiration date because it is 2012.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Let's focus on the second for a moment. What do you believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, hunting and sporting purposes or for keeping tyranny at bay?

If the purpose is to protect hunting do we need anything other than shotguns?
If it is meant to protect us from the tyranny of our government then we should have weapons equal to that of our government. I would draw the line at individual ownership of ICBM's but I think each state should have control of one.

Of course it has nothing to do with hunting. You are not going to have weapons equal to the government, those days are long gone. Using that line of debate is simply outdated. Nor do you need them to fight a standing military, as witnessed by the wars of the last 40 years.

And no way is NJ getting a ICBM

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

You're the one that stated the Bill of Rights has an expiration date because it is 2012.

I did? Where?

I said that to use the line of debate that we need the same weapons as the military is out of date in the real world of today. How exactly are you going to counter a Tomahawk missile, much less multiple ones for example? You are not. Our friends in the 1770s had no such issues.

Regardless gun control debates on the internet never end so I am calling it a day on this one.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Not even sure what this means....

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Of course it has nothing to do with hunting. You are not going to have weapons equal to the government, those days are long gone. Using that line of debate is simply outdated. Nor do you need them to fight a standing military, as witnessed by the wars of the last 40 years.

And no way is NJ getting a ICBM

The Civil War had folks with equivalent arms as well. Once, again, it is an aborogation and neutering of a guaranteed right.

The Constitution and the Bill of of Rights will not end in a bang, but a cowardly whimper.

[kenpoprofessor]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Not even sure what this means....

That's cuz you have a border collie there

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

The Civil War had folks with equivalent arms as well. Once, again, it is an aborogation and neutering of a guaranteed right.

The Constitution and the Bill of of Rights will not end in a bang, but a cowardly whimper.

That was two standing armies with the same equipment. Again nothing to do with the situation today.

The COTUS and the BOR has evolved, just as the founders intended it to do. They built in that ability for a reason, they knew it would be needed. It is not dying.

[zoyter2]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

So, just like I said, you're content with the oppression simply because you've been conditioned to think so. Because it's already happened, then we now have to keep the status quo???

This is truly a circuitous debate point. It's the equivalent of saying, "Well, the barn door was open and the horse got out", but never bothering to retrieve the lost horse.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

So, considering the society in which we are living, just what would be a valid plan to "retrieve the lost horse", so that a grenades could be sold to civilians and the subsequent use of those grenades would very rarely negatively impact innocents?

Circuitous debates are often just debates in which one side offers nothing but an unwavering opinion, backed by extreme examples supporting those opinions, lacking the offer of any type of resolution for the debated idea.

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Of course it has nothing to do with hunting. You are not going to have weapons equal to the government, those days are long gone. Using that line of debate is simply outdated. Nor do you need them to fight a standing military, as witnessed by the wars of the last 40 years.

And no way is NJ getting a ICBM

That's the point, they shouldn't be. When you start accepting limits and restrictions on your rights where do you draw the line?

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

That's cuz you have a border collie there

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Yeah you are such the lone wolf patriot I bet. The last true American no doubt. Living in the midst of society reaping its benefits while cursing it need to have people compromise on their different views for those benefits to be present.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

That was two standing armies with the same equipment. Again nothing to do with the situation today.

The COTUS and the BOR has evolved, just as the founders intended it to do. They built in that ability for a reason, they knew it would be needed. It is not dying.

Standing armies made of regular people who already possessed miltiary arms. The same thing happened in Washingston's administration with a little thing called "Shay's Rebellion". Regular folks with military arms.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by zoyter2

So, considering the society in which we are living, just what would be a valid plan to "retrieve the lost horse", so that a grenades could be sold to civilians and the subsequent use of those grenades would very rarely negatively impact innocents?

I guess you could make the same argument for all firearms, and pointy objects. I guess we should ban everything? Imagine the fun at the range being able to lob grenades on a throw line? Heck, I remember going to an airshow when I was five where I got to fire a deactived mortor. That was an awesome experience.

Circuitous debates are often just debates in which one side offers nothing but an unwavering opinion, backed by extreme examples supporting those opinions, lacking the offer of any type of resolution for the debated idea.

Like the Bill of Rights has an expiration date because it is 2012?

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

That's the point, they shouldn't be. When you start accepting limits and restrictions on your rights where do you draw the line?

So my rights have no limits? What about when they clash with your rights, that tends to happen in a country of 360,000,000 sometimes. What then, fight to the death and winner has their rights?

Rights are not absolute when they conflict with the rights of others, they can't be in a civilized society.

Where do we draw the line? That is where the founders put processes in place to determine that. From the legislative and judicial branches is where, thought the people who elect them.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Standing armies made of regular people who already possessed miltiary arms. The same thing happened in Washingston's administration with a little thing called "Shay's Rebellion". Regular folks with military arms.

Yes they possessed the military arms of the day in the 1860s. That is impossible now and you know it so stop throwing that mess out as a viable point. It just sounds silly.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

So my rights have no limits? What about when they clash with your rights, that tends to happen in a country of 360,000,000 sometimes. What then, fight to the death and winner has their rights?

Rights are not absolute when they conflict with the rights of others, they can't be in a civilized society.

Where do we draw the line? That is where the founders put processes in place to determine that. From the legislative and judicial branches is where, thought the people who elect them.

There is a conflict. You are clashing when other people's rights when you decide you are going to abridge them for their "own good."

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I guess you could make the same argument for all firearms, and pointy objects. I guess we should ban everything? Imagine the fun at the range being able to lob grenades on a throw line? Heck, I remember going to an airshow when I was five where I got to fire a deactived mortor. That was an awesome experience.



Like the Bill of Rights has an expiration date because it is 2012?

Still waiting for you to show me where I mentioned any expiration date. You keep throwing that smoke screen out so you do not have to try and debate the point I really made.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Still waiting for you to show me where I mentioned any expiration date. You keep throwing that smoke screen out so you do not have to try and debate the point I really made.

Post #73.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

There is a conflict. You are clashing when other people's rights when you decide you are going to abridge them for their "own good."

Not their "own good" the good of society. You can not have the benefits of living in society without it's restrictions. Accept it, try to change it or leave the society. Simple stuff.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Post #23.

Weak and you know it.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Not their "own good" the good of society. You can not have the benefits of living in society without it's restrictions. Accept it, try to change it or leave the society. Simple stuff.

Well, for the good of society we should get rid of the 4th Amendment, it would be easier to catch criminals that way, and warrants would be uncessary. The 5th Amendment, that would allow prosecutions to go more smoothly, because you could be forced to incriminate yourself and court appointed attorneys would not be required. The 13th Amendment to keep idiots who don't own property and are on welfare from voting.

What a better society we could have, right?

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

That's the point, they shouldn't be. When you start accepting limits and restrictions on your rights where do you draw the line?

When you live in a society your rights (and the lines attached to them) are determined by that society not you. Hell that is why we have the Founding Documents we are debating in the first place, they are needed to form a society. You sound like you would prefer a society where there are no laws or limits and everybody decides for themselves. You might want to move