First Supreme Court case re: 2nd Amendment in 70 years

[StrangeSox]

lol what? I have no idea how you figured that's what I was saying, in fact I think based off that you're completely misinterpreting my stance on the whole issue. That statement made no argument, it was intended to stand at face value.

 

I think his point was this:

 

You shouldn't have to justify a use for something for the government to allow it; the government should have to justify an overall benefit to ban something.

[Jenksismyhero]

lol what? I have no idea how you figured that's what I was saying, in fact I think based off that you're completely misinterpreting my stance on the whole issue. That statement made no argument, it was intended to stand at face value.

 

Sorry. I'm just saying your statement that there is not a good reason for people to have it isn't a good argument for why it shouldn't be allowed.

 

Instead of saying there's no good reason for it and therefore the government should ban it, the argument should be that the government has an interest in X, Y, Z and therefore they are justified in making it illegal.

 

It's been a rough day, that probably doesn't make sense, but oh well. On with the thread.

[lostfan]

I think his point was this:

 

You shouldn't have to justify a use for something for the government to allow it; the government should have to justify an overall benefit to ban something.

Yeah, I mean I got his point, I just wonder how he arrived at that conclusion.

 

Honestly I cannot think of a reason why Joe Citizen needs a fully automatic assault rifle. I could almost see a submachine gun but even that seems to be a bit of overkill. (Plus, although I wasn't intending to go there, if anyone wanted to justify banning it, it really wouldn't be hard at all)

[lostfan]

Sorry. I'm just saying your statement that there is not a good reason for people to have it isn't a good argument for why it shouldn't be allowed.

 

Instead of saying there's no good reason for it and therefore the government should ban it, the argument should be that the government has an interest in X, Y, Z and therefore they are justified in making it illegal.

 

It's been a rough day, that probably doesn't make sense, but oh well. On with the thread.

It's all good. off top of my head:

 

Arguments in favor - self-defense, being more heavily armed than any criminal or organization, safety of the community, etc.

 

Arguments against - not enough criminal activity to justify need for high-cailber weapons in a relatively safe society (i.e. not like an out-of-control warring African nation), too much risk for collateral damage, waste of ammunition and inability to control direction of fire

[jasonxctf]

like anything else, freedoms come with some kind of limits.

 

freedom of speech does not mean that I can roll into my wife's 2nd grade classroom and talk about porn.. or yell fire in a crowded theater.

 

freedom to bear arms does not mean that i can have a tank or a ground-to-air missle launcher or even those cop-killer guns/bullets that you hear so much about.

 

freedom of the press doesn't mean that you can write unfactual, made up stories about individuals. (slander, lawsuits, etc)

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It's all good. off top of my head:

 

Arguments in favor - self-defense, being more heavily armed than any criminal or organization, safety of the community, etc.

 

Arguments against - not enough criminal activity to justify need for high-cailber weapons in a relatively safe society (i.e. not like an out-of-control warring African nation), too much risk for collateral damage, waste of ammunition and inability to control direction of fire

 

I don't think many people would be advocating using a fully-automatic weapon for self-defense from a criminal. It'd be more along the lines of using it for fun at a shooting range primarily and supporting the idea that the citizens should well-armed so that the government cannot become too powerful.

 

Like I've pointed out, crimes just aren't committed with legally-owned automatic weapons, and those guns haven't even been sold new here in over 20 years. Most probably sit on a shelf somewhere or get taken to the shooting range for some fun. Then you've got the militia nuts who see it not as a right but as a duty to be armed.