Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mason123

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 50
A lot of people seem to be missing the point about the gun control debate.
First, I don't buy guns to defend my house from criminals I buy guns because I love to hunt, and I love to shoot guns.  I'm a good guy. Don't take away my recreation, please!
Second, enforcement should be the key issue.  Drugs are illegal, and because they are illegal BAD people sell them. If Guns are Illegal BAD people will sell them. Honestly, would a law abiding citizen really go buy a gun in a back alley from a gang member if they can just go down to a sporting goods store? 
Make guns illegal and it will create a huge black market for weapons.  Gun dealers will go from retail store employees with background checks, to rapists and murders who throw in a case of hollow-point shells when you buy a piece from the trunk of their 1985 cadillac.
Agreed but we must also consider the criminal minded who will purchase weapons to commit violations of law, and that is where my interpretation may help.

I've gotten used to it lol

Please try to be principled with your supposed arguments before you make them, you are flopping around like a bluefin tuna on the back deck of a fishing charter boat.

And/or articulate your points and stop changing/re-defining them.  It would be nice.

Just because you are misrepresenting my points does not mean that the original points lack a principled foundation. If anything, there is more clarity in my argument than in the 2nd Amendment.

Arms = devices that activate munitions
Munitions = Bullets, explosives, rockets, missiles, military purpose chemic cartridges etc...

For as 'book smart' as you seem to act, you don't read all that well.  Try to find the main points.

Those machine guns are not dangerous with just one or a few pieces of ammo in them, cuz I guess it takes an entire box of bullets for someone without aim and direction to figure out where the target is before pulling the trigger?
I'm not book smart.

It seems as though you are missing my point. I am not talking about limiting the quantity of ammo an individual may use. I am talking about preventing individuals deemed mentally unfit, individuals who are repeat violent offenders, from purchasing ANY ammo for firearms. Firearms can do little damage without ammunition. However, for individuals who exhibit a reasonable disposition, such restrictions would not be existent.

Again, as the Second Amendment stands, it would be very difficult or impossible for local, state and federal governments to prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms - especially if the Supreme Court secures the Amendment by taking a very constructionist view on the issue.

Anyway, apart from the insults, I have said that ammunition can be regulated... NOT NECESSARILY BANNED. There is a huge difference between regulating something and explicitly prohibiting something. Evidently you have taken my arguments to mean the prohibition of ammunition, but I say now that this is not my objective.

I am merely suggesting that ammunition, instead of the firing mechanisms, be regulated because the Second Amendment does not allow for much slack in the regulation of 'arms' possession. I believe that the term 'arms' can be narrowed to only firing mechanisms; leaving ammunition in its own category.

I am all for the possession of firearms by reasonable citizens for the protection of themselves, property and others. However, there must be something that still allows us to prevent the acquisition of such dangerous weapons by unstable individuals and repeat felons.

How about my kitchen knives?  I could easily throw one as a projectile across the parking lot and probably hit someone right in the chest with it.   I don't do that of course, I just use them to carve meat and apples and such, but wouldn't they also qualify as ammo?  They make fine projectiles when thrown well. That can even be done with a fork, BTW.

Ammunition: the material fired, scattered, dropped, or detonated from any weapon, as bombs or rockets, and esp. shot, shrapnel, bullets, or shells fired by guns.

If you want to take that perspective, I said before that the government should be allowed to reasonably regulate ammunition. That way, certain machine gun usage can be curtailed, explosives can be restricted, certain individuals can be restricted from purchasing ammunition. Knives on the other hand would be free for use. I do not consider them ammunition.

Exactly, we're all much safer without ammo.

oh boy, so citizens have access to nuclear weapons and such now?  You really did just fall off some cliff.
They do not have access to nuclear weapons because I consider nuclear weapons to be munitions. I fell off a cliff of insanity right into a pool of reason.

If the term 'arms' will be considered a broad definition for weapons with either a military purpose or hunting purpose, then I would foresee nuclear weapons and anti-tank missiles becoming far more easily attainable.

I had a feeling I would leave my self open to that comment. I posted it anyway for some reason. There does not seem to be a very accurate definition for the term 'arm'. Simple terms like 'arm' can prove to be very dangerous.

I do not think the framers intended for citizens to have such wide ranging access to varying levels of military equipment that includes the likes of anti-tank missiles, nuclear weapons and mines; however, it is what it is. The only foreseeable solution is to decide what in fact an 'arm' is.

Have I seen a firearm in the library? No I have not.
Have I held a firearm? Sure have. I have shot an AK47, Glock, M-16, Draganov Sniper Rifle, Baby Eagle, and Uzi.

My position is simple. Arms do not encompass ammunition.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 50