patrick.net

PeopleUnited says

Don't be daft.

Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual. They have been safely used for such purposes by the overwhelming majority of civilian owners since their invention. A responsible user can safely deploy these weapons without threatening the safety of others.

The uranium splitting machines are not practical for recreational or self defense use by individuals. They cannot safely be used for recreational or self defense purposes on the continental United States without threatening the safety of others.

Your reasoning is flawed by years of corrupt programming and self induced Taylor Swifting.

Talk about flawed reasoning.. Does the 2nd Amendment mention anything about hurling projectiles? Or recreational/defense purposes?

I'll answer that--NO.

Either you're for the 2nd Amendment or not. Which is it?

Joey,

You want to talk about the second amendment? Are you for it? Why do you hold this position? Do you think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? Is that why your panties are in a bunch? If you want to have a conversation you need to actually present some dialog not just more daft questions.

PeopleUnited says

Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual.

Pot has recreational purposes. That does not make it a right.

As for self-defense, guns are worthless against the government, and fighting the government was the SOLE purpose of the Second Amendment. You need nukes to fight a nuclear power. So your entire analysis is wrong.

Furthermore, every person is safer in a society that has few or no guns than in a society that is well-armed. This has been proved by the Australian example and by western Europe.

Finally, you still haven't addressed all the other arms that individuals are not allowed to possess like land mines, grenades, flame throwers, etc., all of which can be used for home defense.

PeopleUnited says

Dan has a lot of personal experience in not being sexy,

Your wife begs to differ.

bob2356 says

Jesus christ dan. Grow the fuck up.

Your entitled to your opinion, but you have done nothing to help the situation and you fling insults as often as I do, so you are a hypocrite. You clearly hate me, yet you do not follow your own advice and ignore me. Lead by example.

joshuatrio says

Quote of the year. You summed up Dan perfectly in this one sentence.

In other words, you cannot make an intelligible counter-argument to the original post and must resort to ad hom attacks instead.

PeopleUnited says

You want to talk about the second amendment? Are you for it? Why do you hold this position? Do you think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? Is that why your panties are in a bunch? If you want to have a conversation you need to actually present some dialog not just more daft questions.

Do I want to talk about it? Yes, I think it's relevant to the discussion.
Am I for it? Not really important. Why do I hold that position? Because I'm not a Supreme Court judge
Do I think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? I think it says:

"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."

So it depends on your definition of arms. As you referred to them as "nuclear arms", it appears you think they qualify as arms. So, my question is how you can you NOT believe that people have the right to bear them?

Is that why your panties are in a bunch? No idea what you are talking about here.

me123 says

Don't you see that as a unfair advantage?

The most deadly weapon is a strong set of beliefs backed by a will to pay the ultimate price for them.

There were many unfair advantages against the newly formed Americans the first time, and we won. We had many advantages in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and frankly the US has been on the losing side of those engagements, to a good degree. Architecture of aggression will only go as far as your aggression and will can compel you to go.

me123 says

Exactly, the definition of arms.

When the 2nd was written, the Militia had the same "arms" as the government. Does the Militia have access to the same "arms" the government has now?

Don't you see that as a unfair advantage?

So you are in favor of private citizens having the right to own nuclear arms too--just like peopleunited then, right?

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual.

Dan8267 says

Pot has recreational purposes. That does not make it a right.

PeopleUnited says

Ok, and your point is?

Dan8267 says

As for self-defense, guns are worthless against the government, and fighting the government was the SOLE purpose of the Second Amendment. You need nukes to fight a nuclear power. So your entire analysis is wrong.

PeopleUnited says

You are saying that the whole point of the second amendment was that people have the right to fight the government? You are crazy and dangerous. You should be on some kind of watch list. You are advocating treason.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, every person is safer in a society that has few or no guns than in a society that is well-armed. This has been proved by the Australian example and by western Europe.

PeopleUnited says

No, these "examples" are irrelevant to your argument that the purpose of the second amendment was to give citizens the weapons to wage war on the government. You said so yourself. And now you want to argue a different point. You don't even have a coherent discussion.

Dan8267 says

Finally, you still haven't addressed all the other arms that individuals are not allowed to possess like land mines, grenades, flame throwers, etc., all of which can be used for home defense.

PeopleUnited says

Some of the above could possibly be used safely to defend oneself without endangering the innocent but land mines are not on that list.

joeyjojojunior says

PeopleUnited says

You want to talk about the second amendment? Are you for it? Why do you hold this position? Do you think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? Is that why your panties are in a bunch? If you want to have a conversation you need to actually present some dialog not just more daft questions.

Do I want to talk about it? Yes, I think it's relevant to the discussion.
Am I for it? Not really important.



So in other words you are unwilling to answer your own question.

Pretty lame.

PeopleUnited says

So in other words you are unwilling to answer your own question.

Pretty lame.

I'm not unwilling to answer it--I just don't want this to turn into a discussion about me. I don't really care if you're for or against the 2nd Amendment, I only want to point out hypocrisy in most peoples' views.

Assuming that most people don't think individual citizens should have the right to nuclear arms or drones carrying bunker busting bombs, then they've already decided that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to ALL arms. It's just a questions of which ones are regulated. And once we realize that, it's a much easier discussion to have.

So now libbies want to take away the "undecided" position.
Libbies, always taking, never giving...

joeyjojojunior says

Either you're for the 2nd Amendment or not. Which is it?

Agreed.
joeyjojojunior says

So, my question is how you can you NOT believe that people have the right to bear them?

Is that why your panties are in a bunch? No idea what you are talking about here.