ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

[derspiess]

This is a perfect example - we cannot even discuss the SAFE act provisions on magazine capacity (which incidentally I don't even support) without someone bleating on about "freedom", as if "freedom" is defined by the ability to shove 10 rounds in your gun instead of 7, or 50 instead of 30, or 200 instead of 100, or 5 instead of 3.

Not sure why you have such a big problem with my use of the word "freedom".  Any time you lower the magazine capacity limit, you are placing further limitations on gun freedom.  It could be a particular freedom you don't use or don't care about, but that doesn't make it less of a freedom.

You really like to pick the silliest things to take issue with.

[Berkut]

This is a perfect example - we cannot even discuss the SAFE act provisions on magazine capacity (which incidentally I don't even support) without someone bleating on about "freedom", as if "freedom" is defined by the ability to shove 10 rounds in your gun instead of 7, or 50 instead of 30, or 200 instead of 100, or 5 instead of 3.

Not sure why you have such a big problem with my use of the word "freedom".  Any time you lower the magazine capacity limit, you are placing further limitations on gun freedom.  It could be a particular freedom you don't use or don't care about, but that doesn't make it less of a freedom.

You really like to pick the silliest things to take issue with.

OK, I thought you were using the term more in its "Freedom!" connotation - as in, "How can we be a free people if you take away our ability to oppose the gub'mint with many, many bullets!" as opposed to simply espousing the basic Libertarian ideal that any law should not restrict the ability of people to act as they wish without good reason.

You never struck me as much of a libertarian though, but that's cool - that is pretty much why I oppose the rule as well - I don't think that the change from 10 to 7 is meaningful in any manner that can be credibly claimed to actually make a difference.

But that position is not dependent on the Second existing to begin with.

[11B4V]

Yeah, but then again you're on record as saying you want the 2nd Amendment repealed, so I'm not surprised to hear you say that.

Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?

Lame

How so?

What, there isn't ANY restriction on the term "arms" then - since the term can mean anything, then it must mean everything?

Exactly. That is why your argument is circular and therefore rather lame. 

Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?

No where does it (2nd Amd) state it refers to muskets or any type of arms for that matter. So it's idiotic to pose it as an example.

But then what is a high cap mag? What defines high capacity? By your example anything that holds more than one round. Holds more than one round in a detachable magazine? A non detachable magazine area? A cylindrical storage area ala revovler? Nor does it limit the number of barrels. A double barrel shot gun doesnt fit your definition.

[Ed Anger]

It's a 'clip'.

[11B4V]

It's a 'clip'.

I'll kill you.....

[sbr]

So 11b and spicey, you say the founder's intentions are an idiotic thing to consider.  Is that a consistant argument in all things for you?

[derspiess]

OK, I thought you were using the term more in its "Freedom!" connotation - as in, "How can we be a free people if you take away our ability to oppose the gub'mint with many, many bullets!" as opposed to simply espousing the basic Libertarian ideal that any law should not restrict the ability of people to act as they wish without good reason.

You never struck me as much of a libertarian though, but that's cool - that is pretty much why I oppose the rule as well - I don't think that the change from 10 to 7 is meaningful in any manner that can be credibly claimed to actually make a difference.

But that position is not dependent on the Second existing to begin with.

I'm actually libertarian on more issues than not.  And I tend toward the libertarian side on the "Freedom!" thingie you mention but as I wasn't invoking that, let's not go there.

[derspiess]

So 11b and spicey, you say the founder's intentions are an idiotic thing to consider.  Is that a consistant argument in all things for you?

  Nice false premise there.

[Ed Anger]

It's a 'clip'.

I'll kill you.....

Don't stand in front of my door. I shoot through it daily.

[sbr]

@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question.  I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.

It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering.  I know 11b called it idiotic.

[DGuller]

I'm actually libertarian on more issues than not.

You're a libertarian in a way that most conservatives are libertarian:  highly selectively.  If your position happens to match the libertarian one, you'll milk the libertarian dogma for added legitimacy, but in no way would your position be driven by libertarian ideals.  Even Soviet Union was "libertarian on some issues".

[DGuller]

So 11b and spicey, you say the founder's intentions are an idiotic thing to consider.  Is that a consistant argument in all things for you?

  Nice false premise there.

Seems like a very true premise.  You seem to interpret the wording of the amendment literally, without taking into account the context that those who wrote it lived under at that time.

[derspiess]

@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question.  I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.

It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering.  I know 11b called it idiotic.

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

[11B4V]

So 11b and spicey, you say the founder's intentions are an idiotic thing to consider.  Is that a consistant argument in all things for you?

Ask Berkut he seems to know  . Do you "know" what their intentions "were"? Is their intentions defined somewhere? Were they thinking about the possibility that firearms technology would advance from the point of the musket. To them a six shot cap and ball black powder revolver would be high capacity. Or did they leave the 2nd amd purposely general in definition? Was there any that dissented with the second amendment at the time of it's construction? Is there a record of that dissent and what was their arguement?

Anyone can tout their intentions all they want. Unless it's defined, your pissing in the wind.     

[11B4V]

@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question.  I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.

It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering.  I know 11b called it idiotic.

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

Yes

I know 11b called it idiotic.

and no I did not. Nice try. I did not state their intentions were idiotic. We dont know their intentions. Berkuts use of musket was idiotic as an example.