Gun Shows

[RobinFinderson]

That is not the wealth I am talking about, but I think you know that.

If you really don't know what I mean, then what I'm sayingis that I am vehemently opposed to Obama's comments that those who are able to afford it should pay more to help those in need.

I am willing to help, but I want it to be my decision, not Obama's.

I know what you mean, but I'm not sure that you know what Obama means when he talks about 'spreading the wealth.' You chose to interpret that to mean 'socialist programs' and welfare, but those aren't his words.

[venkman]

DC vs. Heller settled those laws, didn't it? Isn't that water under the bridge now? The 2nd amendment might not be a litmus test for his choice of future judges, but it won't be his top concern either.

You never answered the question about letting people own powerful weapons. Machine guns? RPGs? Shoulder launched surface to air missiles?

BTW, as soon as drugs are legal, most of them (opium, cocaine, marijuana, mushrooms) will be grown in people's back yards. No tariff. We will have a country of gardeners, just like SWK wanted.

I believe DC has all but ignored the Heller decision. I could be wrong, but they were pretty defiant after the ruling and basically said not much is going to change.

The "where does it all end" argument is a red herring. No one is arguing for the right to own nukes or tanks. At most, you'd find an argument for the legality of owning standard issue infantryman firearms of the day, eg. M-16's, AK-47's, etc. Most 2nd ammendment-ites I've found are content with owning high-powered semi-autos like the AR-15.

[il Padrino Ute]

DC vs. Heller settled those laws, didn't it? Isn't that water under the bridge now? The 2nd amendment might not be a litmus test for his choice of future judges, but it won't be his top concern either.

You never answered the question about letting people own powerful weapons. Machine guns? RPGs? Shoulder launched surface to air missiles?

BTW, as soon as drugs are legal, most of them (opium, cocaine, marijuana, mushrooms) will be grown in people's back yards. No tariff. We will have a country of gardeners, just like SWK wanted.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but didn't DC. vs. Heller end up with the Supreme Court siding in favor of the citizen?

If that the case, Obama has stated that he agrees with the mayor of DC who believes that the SCOTUS got it wrong and will ignore the decision.

If people want to own powerful weapons, I say let them. But they should suffer the consequences if they choose to use those weapons to hurt others.

And if folks want to grow their own drugs, they will still have to suffer the consequences if the harm others, no?

My point is that freedom from government is always best.

[RobinFinderson]

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

That was Obama's response to the Heller decision.

[RobinFinderson]

If people want to own powerful weapons, I say let them. But they should suffer the consequences if they choose to use those weapons to hurt others.

Timothy McVeigh with anthrax. Awesome.

[RobinFinderson]

The "where does it all end" argument is a red herring. No one is arguing for the right to own nukes or tanks. At most, you'd find an argument for the legality of owning standard issue infantryman firearms of the day, eg. M-16's, AK-47's, etc. Most 2nd ammendment-ites I've found are content with owning high-powered semi-autos like the AR-15.

The purpose of the 'where does it end' argument is simply to establish that we are talking about gray territory. Our 2nd amendment friends are 'content with owning high-powered semi-autos?' Content = gray area!

Increasing the ability of police to track illegal guns sales is gray area. The point is these ideas belong in the same conversation.

[il Padrino Ute]

Timothy McVeigh with anthrax. Awesome.

And he suffered the consequences of his actions, didn't he?

[RobinFinderson]

And he suffered the consequences of his actions, didn't he?

Wow! I can't wait to start growing anthrax. I bet there will be a pretty good market for it, and once it is out of my hands, the responsibility for its use falls on the people who purchased it. Anthrax doesn't kill people. People putting anthrax into your building's HVAC system kill people. I'm going to be RICH!

[il Padrino Ute]

Wow! I can't wait to start growing anthrax. I bet there will be a pretty good market for it, and once it is out of my hands, the responsibility for its use falls on the people who purchased it. Anthrax doesn't kill people. People putting anthrax into your building's HVAC system kill people. I'm going to be RICH!

You need to work on your sarcasm.

[RobinFinderson]

You need to work on your sarcasm.

You are probably right. Is that your response? Letting the Tim McVeighs have anthrax is acceptable to you so long as we give them the electric chair after they have done their work?

[il Padrino Ute]

You are probably right. Is that your response? Letting the Tim McVeighs have anthrax is acceptable to you so long as we give them the electric chair after they have done their work?

Pretty much so, yes, though I don't know what that has to do with the 2nd Amendment, as the right to bear arms is pretty clear in that it means guns.

[RobinFinderson]

Pretty much so, yes, though I don't know what that has to do with the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd amendment establishes the right to bear "Arms." Arms means weapons. The most literal reading would include anthrax, dynamite, fertilizer bombs, biological weapons, radioactive weapons, shoulder fired surface to air missiles, and guns.

The reason the 2nd amendment tends to be limited to guns is because of the success of the NRA, but any good Constitutional literalist would have to include all manner of explosives as well, since these are common 'arms' that have been used by common citizens since the drafting of the Constitution.

So, to be consistent, if you argue that the government keeping track of gun ownership is an infringement of the 2nd amendment rights, you would also have to argue that the government can't control who owns dynamite.

As the definition of 'arms' gets broader (as you would have it) it goes on to include anthrax and radioactive material.

You think that is acceptable.

[il Padrino Ute]

The 2nd amendment establishes the right to bear "Arms." Arms means weapons. The most literal reading would include anthrax, dynamite, fertilizer bombs, biological weapons, radioactive weapons, shoulder fired surface to air missiles, and guns.

The reason the 2nd amendment tends to be limited to guns is because of the success of the NRA, but any good Constitutional literalist would have to include all manner of explosives as well, since these are common 'arms' that have been used by common citizens since the drafting of the Constitution.

So, to be consistent, if you argue that the government keeping track of gun ownership is an infringement of the 2nd amendment rights, you would also have to argue that the government can't control who owns dynamite.

As the definition of 'arms' gets broader (as you would have it) it goes on to include anthrax and radioactive material.

You think that is acceptable.

I stated that my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was about guns.

But yes, if someone wants to own anthrax, I personally don't care. I have no desire to own it. But that doesn't mean that I don;t think others should not be allowed to have it.

You seem to think that I condone a person using something like anthrax to hurt others. I don't.

Again, if someone wants to own anthrax and chooses to use it to harm others, that person should have to suffer the consequences.

You and others on the left want to control my life by limiting my access to guns.

Why?

[RobinFinderson]

I stated that my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was about guns.

I guess you are not a Constitutional literalist.

But yes, if someone wants to own anthrax, I personally don't care. I have no desire to own it. But that doesn't mean that I don;t think others should not be allowed to have it.

There are enough crazy people out there that this would destroy the public sphere. No more walks to see Christmas lights. No more shopping malls. No more HVAC systems. All of this would be too much of a liability if people had the right to own anthrax. You have accepted the loony position.

You seem to think that I condone a person using something like anthrax to hurt others. I don't.

Again, if someone wants to own anthrax and chooses to use it to harm others, that person should have to suffer the consequences.

You trust people way more than I do.

You and others on the left want to control my life by limiting my access to guns.

Why?

Robin's view: Because if reasonable measures can be taken to significantly crimp the criminal use and trade of weapons inside this country, without preventing thoughtful law-abiding citizens from owning guns for recreation and self defense, then I think we should explore those options. That is my view.

IPU's view: But yes, if someone wants to own anthrax, I personally don't care.

I win.

[il Padrino Ute]

You don't win because you are opposed to freedom. You want to control.