• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump: take the firearms first, go through due process second

He's talking about crazy people. So you are against removal of AR-15's from crazy people using due process that somehow shows they are crazy.

Trump explicitly said he would take the guns away from anyone "deemed crazy" (by who???) BEFORE due process. Your complaints about how few people here agree with you may be related to your body of knowledge. What is your news source that gets you all backwards?
 
He's talking about crazy people. So you are against removal of AR-15's from crazy people using due process that somehow shows they are crazy.

Trump explicitly said he would take the guns away from anyone "deemed crazy" (by who???) BEFORE due process. Your complaints about how few people here agree with you may be related to your body of knowledge. What is your news source that gets you all backwards?

No process to determine who is how crazy is needed under Cheato's proposed autocracy - if that were a requirement it would constitute some kind of "due process", and would be preceded by the confiscation of their weapons. Fragilego probably wants exclusive authority for himself and his appointed deputies to say "You, you, and you - you're crazy. No guns for you!". Then, if they have very very deep pockets and very good lawyers, they might allowed to sue for their 2nd amendment rights. Of course, anyone with very very deep pockets is already a Trump darling, and so would not likely be targeted by his hand-picked deputies...
 
He's talking about crazy people. So you are against removal of AR-15's from crazy people using due process that somehow shows they are crazy.

Trump explicitly said he would take the guns away from anyone "deemed crazy" (by who???) BEFORE due process. Your complaints about how few people here agree with you may be related to your body of knowledge. What is your news source that gets you all backwards?

No process to determine who is how crazy is needed under Cheato's proposed autocracy - if that were a requirement it would constitute some kind of "due process", and would be preceded by the confiscation of their weapons. Fragilego probably wants exclusive authority for himself and his appointed deputies to say "You, you, and you - you're crazy. No guns for you!". Then, if they have very very deep pockets and very good lawyers, they might allowed to sue for their 2nd amendment rights. Of course, anyone with very very deep pockets is already a Trump darling, and so would not likely be targeted by his hand-picked deputies...

Exactly
 
There are very few "firearms" in circulation... black powder, muzzle-loaded musket ball firing weapons only recently have come back in popularity as novelty arms. A enthusiastic family member of mine likes them for the fun of the process just to fire one round... which an expert can do every 30 seconds or so.

Semi-automatic weapons are not firearms. They are military-grade machines of mass destruction. We call them "guns". The second amendment protects possession of "firearms" for state-appointed militia. So, if you are a member of the militia (aka the police force), the state has the right to allow you to carry a "firearm". The feds cannot impinge on the rights of the state to form a police force, independent of the feds.

There is no problem with firearms. There is a huge problem with the proliferation of military-grade weapons of mass-destruction that erroneously have been covered by the 2nd amendment.

The weapons protected by the 2nd were the military-grade weapons of the time.

And your definition of "firearm" does not match common usage.

It is the basis of my thesis that it is the very definition itself that is suspect.

And the "military weapons of the time" were cannons, not flint-lock muskets.

Cannons were crew-served weapons, not infantry weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

An AR-15 is not remotely similar to what had been called a firearm... unless you are also arguing that "crack cocaine" is just as similar to "sugar", and should be regulated identically.

As evolutionary history progresses, small changes add up to speciation. According to your claim, bacteria and humans are precisely the same thing.

You want one of those cannon ball firing things that can kill 100 people in less than 30 seconds? Then regulations regarding where such a machine can be used might be appropriate... that is what REGULATING WELL means.

You realize black powder cannons are basically unregulated? The Mythbusters made their own in California.

This is only partially true. black powder itself is regulated. for example, it is illegal to store more than 40 lbs of it at a time, unless you are a firearms dealer... and even then, there are limits to inventory you may maintain.

Storage limits on black powder have nothing to do with regulations on cannons.
 
It is the basis of my thesis that it is the very definition itself that is suspect.

And the "military weapons of the time" were cannons, not flint-lock muskets.

Cannons were crew-served weapons, not infantry weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

An AR-15 is not remotely similar to what had been called a firearm... unless you are also arguing that "crack cocaine" is just as similar to "sugar", and should be regulated identically.

As evolutionary history progresses, small changes add up to speciation. According to your claim, bacteria and humans are precisely the same thing.

You want one of those cannon ball firing things that can kill 100 people in less than 30 seconds? Then regulations regarding where such a machine can be used might be appropriate... that is what REGULATING WELL means.

You realize black powder cannons are basically unregulated? The Mythbusters made their own in California.

This is only partially true. black powder itself is regulated. for example, it is illegal to store more than 40 lbs of it at a time, unless you are a firearms dealer... and even then, there are limits to inventory you may maintain.

Storage limits on black powder have nothing to do with regulations on cannons.
It wouldn't be a LP reply if it didn't respond to the least important part of someone else's post.
 
It is the basis of my thesis that it is the very definition itself that is suspect.

And the "military weapons of the time" were cannons, not flint-lock muskets.

Cannons were crew-served weapons, not infantry weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

An AR-15 is not remotely similar to what had been called a firearm... unless you are also arguing that "crack cocaine" is just as similar to "sugar", and should be regulated identically.

As evolutionary history progresses, small changes add up to speciation. According to your claim, bacteria and humans are precisely the same thing.

You want one of those cannon ball firing things that can kill 100 people in less than 30 seconds? Then regulations regarding where such a machine can be used might be appropriate... that is what REGULATING WELL means.

You realize black powder cannons are basically unregulated? The Mythbusters made their own in California.

This is only partially true. black powder itself is regulated. for example, it is illegal to store more than 40 lbs of it at a time, unless you are a firearms dealer... and even then, there are limits to inventory you may maintain.

Storage limits on black powder have nothing to do with regulations on cannons.

Not sure what the relevant distinction is between military roles... a military weapon is one developed for use by the military... and further, for use specifically to kill as many people as possible during combat. What does the role of the military personnel using the equipment have to do with whether or not it is a military weapon?

And wasn't the "standard" infantry weapon a fucking sword back then? (googled it): It was the Musket. specifically, the Brown Bess. Smooth bore muzzle loaded.
 
found this:https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers

This is what the Second Amendment guarantees States MAY allow:

Equipment of a Militiaman

The Continental army often used the local militia to help out. The militia, made up of male citizens over sixteen years of age, was the defense force of each state. Regiments of militia were called up for service by the governor or the commanding general to serve for a campaign or for a period of time as needed. These soldiers were told what equipment they had to bring with them.

The militia soldier carried equipment that looked different from that of the Continental soldier but that usually performed the same or similar function. His knapsack was generally made from linen or canvas and sometimes painted. His haversack and canteen were usually similar to those used by the Continentals. He also had an ax and a blanket.

A militia rifleman carried his rifle, knife, tomahawk—a light ax, water bottle, a powderhorn for his black powder, and a hunting pouch that held other shooting supplies. Sometimes a patch knife, used to cut a patch of cloth, and a loading block, which held patched bullets enabling the rifleman to load quicker, were attached to the strap of the hunting pouch. In addition, a charger measured the amount of powder to put into the rifle when loading.
 
He's talking about crazy people. So you are against removal of AR-15's from crazy people using due process that somehow shows they are crazy.

Trump explicitly said he would take the guns away from anyone "deemed crazy" (by who???) BEFORE due process. Your complaints about how few people here agree with you may be related to your body of knowledge. What is your news source that gets you all backwards?

I think you messed up your quote tags.
 
He's talking about crazy people. So you are against removal of AR-15's from crazy people using due process that somehow shows they are crazy.

Trump explicitly said he would take the guns away from anyone "deemed crazy" (by who???) BEFORE due process. Your complaints about how few people here agree with you may be related to your body of knowledge. What is your news source that gets you all backwards?

I think you messed up your quote tags.

It's a summary of your view provided you put it in context of Trump's statement. So you need to answer the question.
 
Back
Top Bottom