close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

I think the NFA is Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Kingarthurhk, Dec 8, 2012.

  1. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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 Using that line of debate is simply outdated.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. :wavey:

    And no way is NJ getting a ICBM :whistling:
     
  2. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    I did? Where? :wavey:

    I said that to use the line of debate that we need the same weapons as the military is out of date in the real world of today.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. :wavey:
     

  3. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    :dunno:

    Not even sure what this means....
     
  4. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    10,153
    1,279
    Sep 5, 2010
    Texas
    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.
     
  5. That's cuz you have a border collie there :rofl:

    Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

    Clyde
     
  6. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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.
     
  7. zoyter2

    zoyter2 Yeah, so what?

    4,697
    7
    Jun 25, 2002
    Anniston, Alabama
    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.
     
  8. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    3
    Feb 18, 2009
    That's the point, they shouldn't be. When you start accepting limits and restrictions on your rights where do you draw the line?
     
  9. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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. :rofl:
     
  10. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    10,153
    1,279
    Sep 5, 2010
    Texas
    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.
     
  11. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    10,153
    1,279
    Sep 5, 2010
    Texas
    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?:rofl:
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  12. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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.
     
  13. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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.
     
  14. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    10,153
    1,279
    Sep 5, 2010
    Texas
    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."
     
  15. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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. :wavey:
     
  16. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    10,153
    1,279
    Sep 5, 2010
    Texas
    Post #73.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  17. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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.
     
  18. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    Weak and you know it. :wavey:
     
  19. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    10,153
    1,279
    Sep 5, 2010
    Texas
    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?
     
  20. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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 :rofl: