Subject: | Re: Does the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own Stinger missiles?
| Date: | Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:49:06 GMT
| From: | "Morton Davis" <oglrethorpe@oglethorpe.com>
| Newsgroups: | alt.california,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.republican
|
"Glenn" <ozarkheart@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:OgnQa.54534$N7.6954@sccrnsc03...
>
>
> --
>
> Glenn: Located in the Beautiful Missouri Ozarks
> "Biznatch Hadhersnatch" <biznatch_hadhersnatch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F11B35C.5BF25F21@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Glenn wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a point the anti-gunners love because it might cause a rift in
> the
> > > ranks. And it is a difficult point to deal with. I can see your
side
> > > quite well. But a classical definition of arms would be those that
are
> > > routinely carried by a soldier and that he would use to defend
himself.
> A
> > > crew served weapon does not fall into that category: F-16's, tanks,
> etc,
> > > could be considered "arms" in the broadest sense of the word. Neither
> would
> > > a tactical nuke.
> > >
> > > Now the anti-gunners love this. Their logic: See, you **do** agree
> with
> > > 'gun control' becuse you agree that the average person should not be
> allowed
> > > to own a nuke.
> > >
> > > Common sense eludes them.
> > >
> >
> > We're not discussing "common sense", we're discussing Constitutional
> principles.
> >
> > If you agree that Americans should be allowed to own AK-47s because they
> have an
> > inalienable right to protection and that they are a check against
> government
> > power, then you should also agree that they should be allowed to own
> Stinger
> > missiles and nuclear weapons. If not, you're a hypocrite and you lack
the
> > courage of your convictions.
>
> Not a bit.
>
> Because I believe in freedom of the press, does that mean I believe one
can
> print and distribute child pornography?
The laws do not prevent it. They punish you after the fact. And the current
laws are only about 20 years old. Magazines and movies that depicted
children involved in sex acts with each other and adults were commonplace in
the USA in the 1970s and many are registered with the Library of Congress.
Do you think they could do a remake of "Pretty Baby" today?
> Am I free to practice my freedom of speech to threaten someone, or to
commit
> perjury?
Yes. The laws can not prevent you from doing anything. The laws punish you
after the fact.
>
> Because I believe in freedom of speech, does that mean I can use a
> loudspeaker at 0200 in my front yard?
Certainly. Again, the laws do not prevent you doing it, they punish you
after the fact. Plus, it depends where your front yard is. If it's in the
middle of a ten thousand acre farm or ranch, I doubt anyone would complain.
>
> No right is without it's limits.
Actually, those limits are set to punish you IF you do something. What the
gun grabbers want to do is to punish everyone before they do anything.
>
> And that is what we are discussing. What limits are there? Scout makes
> some very solid points.
Most limits are self imposed. They have their roots in accepted manners and
deportment. You might say "Goddamn, piss, motherfucker!" in the company of
male companions, however few would say it in the company of nuns or around
small children. Not if you want to be invited back or are adverse to being
beaten to a pulp.
Laws are artificial constructs designed to influence behavior. A hundred
years ago, prostitutrion was commonplace in America as method through which
women made money, There were not many other jobs for a woman and many
discovered that they could earn more "flatbacking" than by taking in
laundry. The laws began to change dramatically around the start of WWI. The
FBI was originally set up to hunt down and break up a massive white slavery
ring that turned out not to exist.
>
>
> > Watching conservatives endlessly debating the definition of "arms" is
> incredibly
> > entertaining. You're all turning into Bill Clinton saying "That depends
> on what
> > the definition of 'is' is."
>
> An interesting point. Except Clinton was attempting to evade the truth -
> which is reakky difficukt as that particular word is not in his
vocabulary.
>
Clinton lied under oath, committing perjury. He was impeached, fined (twice)
and disbarred because of his perjury. That is what the liberrals try to hide
behind a smoke screen.
-*MORT*-
|