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 ... 5 6 7 8 9  11 12 13 14 15 ... 54
« on: March 19, 2008, 12:21:00 PM »
I already argued my merits as much as I'm going to here. You think you won, and that's cool. I don't.
That's better than being a smug feminine hygiene product.
Yeah I agree with him to a certain extend, but I advocate for the restricting of certain ammunitions, not a huge markup price for questionable munitions.
« on: March 19, 2008, 12:15:37 PM »
That's cool. You keep believing that. Let me know when you convince a judge and I'll send you candy & flowers.
Is that what you're going to do in the court room as an attorney? You're just going to be passive and not even argue the merits of your opponents argument? Please, I am delighted to hear what you may have to say. But it seems as though you have no response beyond your cute attempt at arrogance.
« on: March 19, 2008, 12:12:41 PM »
My dictionary disagrees with you.
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments : they were subjugated by force of arms | [as adj. ] arms exports.
My dictionary disagrees with your dictionary.
1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.
Looks like an arm does not necessarily have to be firearm, but it could very well be a sword/dagger/knife or blunt object. A firearm, even without the munitions is potentially a deadly weapon (pistol whip). Whether bullets or missiles are weapons without being activated is debatable, but there in is my point. Munitions are not necessarily protected by the constitution.
« on: March 19, 2008, 11:36:38 AM »
You have your reason, I have my constitution. The constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, it does not protect your right to ammunition. A firearm or anti-tank missile launching system is a type of armament. The munition which you put into it to make it a lethal weapon is a totally different element in the equation.
According to the constitution you cannot limit/abridge/infringe on our right to possess arms, this would include arming mechanisms for nuclear weapons, mortar tubes, rocket launchers, machine guns and the like. They are all arms, although many of these are military grade weapons.
What you can do LEGALLY is limit the scope and utilization of such arms by prohibiting certain munitions from use by the general public. What you are suggesting is neither legal nor constitutional. Your limitation on the scope of the term 'arm' is already infringement.
If the framers wanted our right to hand-held firearms or muskets protected, they could have easily worded it that way. But they chose not to. Therefore, we have a very broad term that can include very serious weapons under its umbrella. My perspective provides the courts with a legal means of restricting certain use of arms by restricting munitions.
I have no doubts that the framers wanted to keep a canon out of the house of common citizens. However, you cannot use that as a substantial argument in this case. All we have is the constitution.
« on: March 19, 2008, 11:02:58 AM »
No. Arms are constitutionally protected, ammunition is NOT. What you are doing is infringing upon our right to arms by trying to limit the scope, which is unconstitutional. The words in the constitution have been specially selected by the framers; each and every word of it discusses and reviewed. They do not use the word infringed lightly. You have no standing to limit the scope of the word.
Arms are not ammunition. It is that simple, and by that token there is a loop hole. That may have been the intention of the framers. If they wanted to protect ammunition as well, they would have stated it so as it prevent any misunderstandings. That is all.
« on: March 19, 2008, 12:30:10 AM »
I'm going to call "false dichotomy!" on your first paragraph. There's no reason to think the scope of protected arms falls somewhere between those two. In fact, I think it does.
My point is that drawing the line on what constitutes an 'arm' would be challenging, and almost any interpretation will be debatable. An explosive can be armed, a nuclear weapon can be armed. So are these protected possessions for average citizens? Obviously not. It seems likely under your perspective. Under my interpretation these would be munitions, and the arming mechanisms would be protected. I consider firearms to be arming mechanisms. The only credible and accurate perspective we have on the Second Amendment is the Second Amendment itself. The Second Amendment makes it very hard to ban certain arms and allow other arms.
When you hear that a person was shot by an "armed" assailant you assume that they had bullets. When you hear the word "Army" you assume that they have access to bullets as well as guns. When you think of "Armament", you think of munitions as well as weaponry.
Actually, the word that suggested bullets were involved was "shot" not "armed." In this case the term is militia, not army.
« on: March 19, 2008, 12:07:46 AM »
Of course they intended for Jonas to have access to both arms AND ammunition! Jonas was a sane and reasonable man. However, if Jonas were a loon and was considered crazy by his fellow citizens, he would also have a right to a firearm however he could still be denied the cartridges. In times of insurrection, rebellion, or invasion even the crazies should be given some ammunition!
Ultimately - although the farmer Jonas argument seems to show the clear intention of the framers, it does not explain the obviously ambiguous choice of terminology used to establish the Second Amendment. It's a great story, clear as day! Now why couldn't the constitution explain gun laws in a more certain fashion?
« on: March 18, 2008, 11:42:22 PM »
I think this is a blind alley. The is a right to bear arms, not a right to bear arms without substantial function. It is an empty right if you can call a flower pot an "arm." The government could ban possession of all other potential arms under the theory that you could arm yourself with a flowerpot. Whatever weapons are protected arms are protected such that they are functional.
Empty right or not, arms are not clearly defined by the Second Amendment. Functionality is a very subjective term as is the term "arm". It can be either a broad term for military grade equipment capable of inflicting harm on others, or it can be focused to particular types of "arms" available during the framing of the constitution (powder based circular projectile muskets). In the former, I would assume that a broad interpretation would allow average citizens access to military purpose explosives, rockets, missiles and the like.
I do not challenge the notion that arms are permitted to be possessed by citizens in all forms; I challenge the notion that munitions automatically fall under the umbrella term of "arm." The right to munitions of all sorts was not promised; the right to arms was however.
« on: March 18, 2008, 10:54:25 PM »
Which is precisely why the right to bear arms implies the ability to use those arms.
Although that may seem like a reasonable inference, I did not neglect to overlook the possibility that an arm can be used as a blunt force object. A firearm can be deadly without even expelling a bullet. Therefore, your extrapolation may be going too far. You may keep and bear arms (potentially deadly weapons even when unloaded), but the bullets were never promised to you by the framers.
I support the Second Amendment fully, but we must also take into consideration the obviously awful realities of modern America.
« on: March 18, 2008, 10:46:57 PM »
I think that "right to bear arms" in the second amendment implies ammunition too.
It sure as hell does not. Arms are arms, and ammunition is essentially a totally separate issue. Munitions can be nuclear projectiles, missiles, rockets, and the like. Having the contraption that expels or arms such munitions, without the munitions, would basically render the arms useless (except if you use them as blunt objects).
Another thing that I have often thought about-if the 2nd Amendment applies to militias for the purpose of protecting itself against the government, then what about the current situation where the federal government arms and trains the National Guard? States can call upon the NG, but they no longer arm/train them.
It appears that the 2nd Amendment (according to the "militia" interpretation) needs to be updated.
It does not specifically refer to the militia as a citizen army established with the aim of countering government military power in times of injustice. That is more of an assumption than reality.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9  11 12 13 14 15 ... 54