Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America - Page 12
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 162

Thread: Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America

  1. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Gee, you still ignore that if there is no evidence that a gun control law works then there is no logical way to claim that it is a reasonable law. Gun control laws only restrict law abiding citizens. Our Founding Fathers believed in liberty not laws restricting liberty with no basis for need.
    Not exactly.

    I agree that the lack of evidence that gun control laws have the intended effect is a good argument against people who claim that gun controls have some intended effect.

    Your logic, however, is infected with a fallacy - the fallacy that laws must be proven effective before they can be enacted, or that existing laws must be repealed if they can't be shown to be effective. That simply is not the way our government and law is structured.

    If it could be shown that a particular gun control law did not work, then such a law might be held unconstitutional to the extend that it interfered with a constitutional right. But you need positive proof that it does not work. The absence of proof will not be sufficient.

  2.   
  3. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Not exactly.

    I agree that the lack of evidence that gun control laws have the intended effect is a good argument against people who claim that gun controls have some intended effect.

    Your logic, however, is infected with a fallacy - the fallacy that laws must be proven effective before they can be enacted, or that existing laws must be repealed if they can't be shown to be effective. That simply is not the way our government and law is structured.

    If it could be shown that a particular gun control law did not work, then such a law might be held unconstitutional to the extend that it interfered with a constitutional right. But you need positive proof that it does not work. The absence of proof will not be sufficient.
    It comes down to, do we follow the Constitution or not. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". So if you are going to say that "reasonable" restraints can be put upon our "Right", then you need to show that the law you are going to put in and certainly the laws that you have already put in, actually accomplish something rather than being nothing more than an inconvenience for law abiding citizens designed to discourage actually utilizing a natural right guaranteed by the Constitution. There are very few gun laws that are anything other than an impediment to the right to keep and bear arms.

    You don't see laws that require prior permission to utilize the right to free speech, nor the right to not incriminate yourself, nor to worship in your church, neither should you see laws that require prior permission to utilize the right to keep and bear arms. There must be some proof, some evidence of legitimacy before you overrule the Constitution or there simply is no Constitution.

    Restricting the right to keep and bear arms from felons, or the criminally insane would not be prior restraint. Any kind of a "license" or restriction on guns (particularly for nothing but cosmetic reasons) certainly would be unconstitutional. But the hoplophobes (heck the left/Dem's/MSM) have turned the Constitution on it's ear and simply "interpreted" it to mean anything they want. It's time for that to stop.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  4. #113
    Someone please enlighten me as to what restraints are reasonable" restraints? Who exactly gets to decide that? By who's definition.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    ... the fallacy that laws must be proven effective before they can be enacted, or that existing laws must be repealed if they can't be shown to be effective. That simply is not the way our government and law is structured.
    Therein lies the problem. If we begin with a clean slate and then just start applying rules on the basis that they cannot be proven to be ineffective (if you even accept that premise in the first place), that is downright tyrannical. And just because our government has been pissing on the Constitution for decades does not make it OK.
    If it could be shown that a particular gun control law did not work, then such a law might be held unconstitutional to the extend that it interfered with a constitutional right. But you need positive proof that it does not work. The absence of proof will not be sufficient.
    Where on earth do you come up with this? Why must the burden of proof lie on those whose natural rights are being violated. And even IF it could be proven that it does work, it is still a violation of our liberty. We are born free people. These rights are inherent and simply can not be removed from us.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  6. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    And even IF it could be proven that it does work, it is still a violation of our liberty. We are born free people. These rights are inherent and simply can not be removed from us.
    And that is a key point that we have been overlooking in this discussion. There are risks associated with liberty. I'm not willing to give up my freedom on the off chance it might make me safer.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  7. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    And even IF it could be proven that it does work, it is still a violation of our liberty. We are born free people. These rights are inherent and simply can not be removed from us.
    And that is a key point that we have been overlooking in this discussion. There are risks associated with liberty. I'm not willing to give up my freedom on the off chance it might make me safer.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  8. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    And your basis for those claims?

    The cited reported to which I was commenting makes it clear that it concluded there were no conclusive studies either way. You may wish it said otherwise but it did not.

    Eventually all forum discussions revert to some reference to Hitler as predicted by the Godwin rule.
    Read the fricking post(s), your being obtuse...

    Constitutional Republic 101: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...

    There has been a plethora of primary source evidence posted to flush your cited conjecture and the rest of your tripe down the fricking toilet, wise up, last warning...

    next time you go on permanent ignore...

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
    By Stewart Rhodes (Retired Army Ranger, Yale Educated Attorney & Noted Scholar on the Constitution & Second Amendment and founder of OathKeepers):

    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  9. #118
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Submachine View Post
    I submit to you all America must allow its citizens the right to purchase fully automatic assault weapons.
    America is at war. The terrorist all have fully automatica AK47 assault rifles, so should law abiding American citizens.!
    Although I love the idea, just imagine the ammo shortage it would create......
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
    "Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out!" Father John Corapi.

  10. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon View Post
    Although I love the idea, just imagine the ammo shortage it would create......
    Lets cross that river when we get to it...

    Then we can demand that we audit the DHS and find out WTF they are buying millions of rounds of ammo?

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  11. The rest of the world is flooded with fully automatic assault weapons, America is at a dangerous disadvantage by not allowing
    American citizens to be armed with fully automatic assault weapons.Think of this global imbalance.

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. America as the Last Man Standing Against Islam
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 01:37 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 04:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 06:32 PM
  4. The Communist Takeover of America
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 09:05 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 08:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast