2nd Amendment Revision For 21st Centu...

2nd Amendment Revision For 21st Century Amerika

Posted in the Albuquerque Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Demosthenes

Albuquerque, NM

#1 Jan 28, 2013
Sensible re-wording for our turbulent times. Courtesy of Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg & Soros, LLC. Your partners
in safety and security.

http://2ndamendmentrevision.blogspot.com
more

Huntsville, AL

#2 Jan 28, 2013
Demosthenes wrote:
Sensible re-wording for our turbulent times. Courtesy of Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg & Soros, LLC. Your partners
in safety and security.
http://2ndamendmentrevision.blogspot.com
moronic spam
Hagar

Sterling Heights, MI

#3 Jan 28, 2013
more wrote:
<quoted text>
moronic spam
You are correct; that's all you do!

“I ain't afraid of no ghosts.”

Since: Aug 08

Dear old mucky Drasnia

#4 Jan 31, 2013
Serious question. Why can't I, as a civilian, have a live tactical nuclear weapon?

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#5 Jan 31, 2013
Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:
Serious question. Why can't I, as a civilian, have a live tactical nuclear weapon?
A little overboard here IMO on 2nd amendment rights, think on that a little bit, seriously. Some things need limitations, and this is one of them.

Of course if one wants to depopulate a country real quick, this is a good way to do it I suppose. I'm not fond of knowing a neighbor would have one that could eradicate my quadrant of Abq.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#7 Jan 31, 2013
Demosthenes wrote:
Sensible re-wording for our turbulent times. Courtesy of Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg & Soros, LLC. Your partners
in safety and security.
http://2ndamendmentrevision.blogspot.com
I like it....

“I ain't afraid of no ghosts.”

Since: Aug 08

Dear old mucky Drasnia

#8 Jan 31, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
A little overboard here IMO on 2nd amendment rights, think on that a little bit, seriously. Some things need limitations, and this is one of them.
Of course if one wants to depopulate a country real quick, this is a good way to do it I suppose. I'm not fond of knowing a neighbor would have one that could eradicate my quadrant of Abq.
Ahh, but the US Constitution does not say what weapons the population cannot have. We should be able to have nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, poison gas, and other heavy weapons as civilians, should we not?

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#9 Jan 31, 2013
Just think, if a couple of thousand Americans owned their own surface-air-missles, there would be no airline industry in this country.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#10 Jan 31, 2013
Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, but the US Constitution does not say what weapons the population cannot have. We should be able to have nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, poison gas, and other heavy weapons as civilians, should we not?
Just thinking of that....okay....lets go with this and my earlier post....

This speaks of a broad interpretation of "the right to bear arms" making it all inclusive....on the Federal level....however....would that mean that states would then have a right to regulate as necessary what arms could be used....

Remember those rights not specifically put forth are reserved for the states....so in this case Federal government could not regulate but the "specific" arms could be regulated state by state....

In which case....New York could regulate as heavily as possible and Texas could allow as much as possible....

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#11 Jan 31, 2013
New York with only bb guns and Texas with the newest EMP weapon....

Seems like "don't mess with Texas" could take on an interesting meaning if we broadly interpret the 2nd amendment....

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#12 Jan 31, 2013
You see the Constitution gives a basic and somewhat broad framework for Federal government so that Federal government would not be able to become the kind of tyrannical government that Britain was....

The specifics on how to apply these frameworks were reserved for the states to decide....

This applies not only to the 2nd amendment but to the religion clause too....

The idea as that the people were to govern themselves rather than an over reaching tyrannical Federal government....

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13 Jan 31, 2013
Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, but the US Constitution does not say what weapons the population cannot have. We should be able to have nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, poison gas, and other heavy weapons as civilians, should we not?
The constitution also doesn't say I can't burn my neighbors house down or poison our water supply either, but common sense tells you its wrong and I should not do it.

The constitution was a guide, not the alpha and omega of life to explicitly set forth every instance of how we should govern ourselves. Think of why we have a police force. Because we as a society are unable to control ourselves and use common sense.

So, should we as individuals have these weapons, no IMO. Were we a 100% civil and caring people we'd not even think of them much less have them, but we are not, and we have them. Just not at a personal level.

So what's your point in this - gun control?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#14 Jan 31, 2013
You can always count on the old tried and true reductio ad absurdum arguments to make a point. Would love to see the cite where, other than some countries out there and terrorist groups, any reasonable and responsible person would want such WMD's or have the capability of using them. Maybe Branson?

Seems that those who even bring it up are just having some fun and trying to troll for a leg or two to jerk.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#15 Jan 31, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
You can always count on the old tried and true reductio ad absurdum arguments to make a point. Would love to see the cite where, other than some countries out there and terrorist groups, any reasonable and responsible person would want such WMD's or have the capability of using them. Maybe Branson?
Seems that those who even bring it up are just having some fun and trying to troll for a leg or two to jerk.
I was just having fun and going with the idea....

Progressive liberals start at point a and somehow want to get to point PI....

I daresay there is a bit of paranoia in their....thinking processes....

“I ain't afraid of no ghosts.”

Since: Aug 08

Dear old mucky Drasnia

#16 Jan 31, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
You can always count on the old tried and true reductio ad absurdum arguments to make a point. Would love to see the cite where, other than some countries out there and terrorist groups, any reasonable and responsible person would want such WMD's or have the capability of using them. Maybe Branson?
Seems that those who even bring it up are just having some fun and trying to troll for a leg or two to jerk.
I wouldn't say that they meet your reductio ad absurdum status when we have civilian scientists arrested for having or selling nuclear material or knowledge, instructions for making dirty bombs readily available online, etc. All it takes is the drive to make certain things, and you can. Look at NASA; when the Apollo program began, ALL of NASA had less than half the computing power available in the average smartphone today.

My point is, do you folks agree that there are at least some weapons that civilians should not have access to?

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#17 Jan 31, 2013
To play devil's advocate based on my earlier posts....if Texas regulates their weapons to allow for....some unconventional weapons and training and licensing to civilians....Constitutionally there can be a case made for that....

But then again....to come to your point Silk....of course there should some people that should not have a bat let alone a gun or something....

Of course that's where mental health comes in....but no one is tackling that issue....which is in many ways more disturbing and more serious....

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#18 Jan 31, 2013
Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is, do you folks agree that there are at least some weapons that civilians should not have access to?
Yes, and there are also some who should not have access to ANY weapons because they are coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#19 Jan 31, 2013
Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:
Serious question. Why can't I, as a civilian, have a live tactical nuclear weapon?
OMG, you too? This question has been asked and answered ad nauseam.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#20 Jan 31, 2013
Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't say that they meet your reductio ad absurdum status when we have civilian scientists arrested for having or selling nuclear material or knowledge, instructions for making dirty bombs readily available online, etc. All it takes is the drive to make certain things, and you can. Look at NASA; when the Apollo program began, ALL of NASA had less than half the computing power available in the average smartphone today.
My point is, do you folks agree that there are at least some weapons that civilians should not have access to?
Sigh, so here we go again. A gun, any gun, at the time the trigger is pulled, hits one very specific place (shot guns a bit randomly though). A gun has the purpose of hitting that one target. A WMD is not contained to a single, specific target, therefor cannot be compared to a gun. You are playing this game because nuclear weapons are often referred to as nuclear arms. The term "arms" relates to armaments, I would think. We all know that, when the 2nd amendment was written, there was zero idea that WMD would ever possibly exist. It's always a rather lame and, dare I say, pathetic, tactic to bring completely absurd comparisons when trying to argue an issue about something that, in all practicality, is completely unrelated.

On that note, how ya doin' Silk? I hope you and your fiancee are well and happy!

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#21 Jan 31, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
To play devil's advocate based on my earlier posts....if Texas regulates their weapons to allow for....some unconventional weapons and training and licensing to civilians....Constitutionally there can be a case made for that....
But then again....to come to your point Silk....of course there should some people that should not have a bat let alone a gun or something....
Of course that's where mental health comes in....but no one is tackling that issue....which is in many ways more disturbing and more serious....
Exactly!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Albuquerque Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
3 Major Television Networks To Merge 14 min You are 2
News Critics: Trump speech signals shift to coded ra... 24 min Responsibility 44
Philadelphia Birthplace of America August 2, 17... 1 hr propagating the a... 1
"It Takes A Village....." 2 hr propagating the a... 1
Today I Saw (Nov '09) 7 hr fmer505-1951 62,060
Good Old Days 2 (Apr '10) 7 hr fmer505-1951 112,859
News Council puts school administrator accused of st... 8 hr you never 5

Albuquerque Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Albuquerque Mortgages