On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, it was a rhetorical question. That means I get it, but I don't agree. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that all of my points are understood. So there.

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
…
Yes they should be outlawed for the average citizen to own. There is no reason for an average citizen to own one. Not because I say so but because it makes no logical sense.

What difference does it make what percentage of gun deaths are because of Uzis. In case you don't know it we're talking about human lives, so what difference does it make which gun killed the most people? Or is even one life lost needlessly acceptable to you so that fools have the right to own killing machines?
…

On Sep 14, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Would you like your freedom of speech re examined? Search and seizure? Right to trial? Because they were all written contemporaneously so according to your theory they all need to be re examined.

Sure examine everything in the light of new advancements. If they still apply as written, as those do, then leave them as they are. They pertain to concepts that have not changed.
The 2nd amendment needs to be clarified in light of todays society.

What exactly is your position on this ONE topic? Can you state it clearly?

You keep telling me why you think I'm wrong, and you keep telling me what other people didn't say, but you never seem to say what you think.
Why is that?

On Sep 14, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
It it's written quite clearly. Only interpretation is those who wish to abridge the right.

On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
What difference does it make what percentage of gun deaths are because of Uzis. In case you don't know it we're talking about human lives, so what difference does it make which gun killed the most people? Or is even one life lost needlessly acceptable to you so that fools have the right to own killing machines?

If "one life lost" in a country of 310 million is your threshold for acceptability, we're going to be banning quite a few things. I think I'll miss trampolines, skateboards, and roller coasters the most.

On Sep 14, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 14, 2014, acesover wrote:
NYCTwister,

As I stated. You don't compete in anything that requires manual dexterity.

Manual dexterity? Yeah it takes a lot of that to move your finger a fraction of an inch.
You are quite the athlete. I'm impressed. LMFAO!

Like I said, you say so little worth responding to.

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
NOW we get to it. You DO NOT like the second amendment. How I feel about it is not the question. You are the one taking positions. I suspected this was your end game and your position. Nice to see my assumptions were right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I like the second amendment, as I've stated more than once. I just have a problem with some peoples interpretating it to mean that all citizens have the right to possess any weapon.

The bill of rights was written over 200 years ago, during a time period when an average citizen might be called to serve in a militia. Does that sound like what we have today?

Do you think that something written that long ago, should not be re-examined in light of what we've invented?
What was state of the art weaponry then? A single shot musket?

Btw, what you think about the 2nd amendment does matter in this context, since that's what we're talking about.

Yes I do take positions. You should try it sometime. If not then why participatein ANY discussion?

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."

The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, it was a rhetorical question. That means I get it, but I don't agree. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that all of my points are understood. So there.

I and others have posited a distinction; you feel that it is a distinction without a difference. As I asked last time in some far off abandoned or deleted thread, how do you feel about private ownership of nuclear weapons? Lower rates of death than Uzis. And yet I see a difference because the only purpose of a nuclear weapon is to kill. Even if I say I just like to collect them, or I have it locked up where I guarantee no one will get to it, it's main function is to kill. If you don't see that as a distinction with a meaningful difference then I will drop it; but frankly it is extremely difficult for me to understand a rational person's not being able to see that difference.

To my mind, the 2nd Amendment argument is the strongest pro-gun argument; the one that says basically, whatever else anyone might think, it doesn't matter because that's what the 2nd Amendment says. I think this is basically Danny's position, and though I don't agree with it fully (I think there's room for interpretation there) I think it's the strongest argument you got.

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, it was a rhetorical question. That means I get it, but I don't agree. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that all of my points are understood. So there.

What are your positions on this matter?
I would really like to hear them clearly stated.

On Sep 14, 2014, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
…
Yes they should be outlawed for the average citizen to own. There is no reason for an average citizen to own one. Not because I say so but because it makes no logical sense.

What difference does it make what percentage of gun deaths are because of Uzis. In case you don't know it we're talking about human lives, so what difference does it make which gun killed the most people? Or is even one life lost needlessly acceptable to you so that fools have the right to own killing machines?
…

I wonder why I suspect you would really like to outlaw more than just uzi’s?
After all, your main arguments seem to be:
1. They are designed to kill people.
2. Even one death from one is not acceptable.

Both of these arguments would apply to all guns. If you want to claim that you AREN’T against outlawing all guns, then please explain how these arguments don’t apply to them.

On Sep 14, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
That's a non-sequitor and, obviously, an attempt to start a specious argument, as usual.

In colonial times, muskets served a dual purpose- hunting and defense. The modern equivalent is a hunting rifle.

On Sep 14, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
That's a non-sequitor and, obviously, an attempt to start a specious argument, as usual.

In colonial times, muskets served a dual purpose- hunting and defense. The modern equivalent is a hunting rifle.

On Sep 14, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, it was a rhetorical question. That means I get it, but I don't agree. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that all of my points are understood. So there.

I and others have posited a distinction; you feel that it is a distinction without a difference. As I asked last time in some far off abandoned or deleted thread, how do you feel about private ownership of nuclear weapons? Lower rates of death than Uzis. And yet I see a difference because the only purpose of a nuclear weapon is to kill. Even if I say I just like to collect them, or I have it locked up where I guarantee no one will get to it, it's main function is to kill. If you don't see that as a distinction with a meaningful difference then I will drop it; but frankly it is extremely difficult for me to understand a rational person's not being able to see that difference.

To my mind, the 2nd Amendment argument is the strongest pro-gun argument; the one that says basically, whatever else anyone might think, it doesn't matter because that's what the 2nd Amendment says. I think this is basically Danny's position, and though I don't agree with it fully (I think there's room for interpretation there) I think it's the strongest argument you got.

Conversely, I can assume that you and NYC don't see a meaningful difference between a 2-shot Derringer and a nuclear weapon either, as they're both designed to kill.