AtheosEmanon's avatar
Well sir, I am no Democrat, to speak to their wants.

The constitution also states that it is up to congress and the supreme court to interpret the laws and whether or not something is constitutional.

The supreme court has stated that a banning of guns in general would be unconstitutional. but it is not unconstitutional to ban certain guns, and yet still leave the right for the people to bear arms in tact.

The supreme court does not agree with you on the terms of banning military grade weapons is a "bad law", saying citizens can have shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, semi-automatic weapons still has the citizens bearing arms, yet the Supreme Court utilizes the General Welfare Clause when making this decision. Looks at the country and its citizenry as a whole, and the safety of the people or the general welfare.

Though speaking of the founding fathers, if we are to be honest, sir - during the times of our founding fathers all they had were one shot pistols, and one shot muskets.. If these are the weapons we were speaking of where you shot one shot and then had to reload I do not think anyone would care - - as well as we did not have a standing army, we had a militia, we do not utilize militias for national defense any longer, so it made sense at the time for the average citizen to have "any weapons" because they were the first line of defense against a national threat - today, as the supreme court has spoken to, we have a military for that.

But fast forwarding, the big next weapon jump used in battle was the gatling gun, which was used during the civil war, which shot several hundred rounds per minute.... so such a gun then that our founding fathers could not even fathom.

Fast forward to today, where you have miniguns, that can shoot 2,000-6,000 rounds per minute with accuracy, also a gun that our founders could not fathom.

One, such as you or I, can only form an opinion, what possible restrictions there may have been by our founding fathers if
-We had a standing military thus the average citizen was not used for national protection
-We had guns that could shoot up to 6,000 rounds per minute before needing to reload vs the one shot and then reload weapons that they had.

I have heard the argument sir, that banning weapons is the road to big government, yet banning military grade weapons has not been shown to increase crime, where you have strict gun laws that make it hard for a person to own any gun is where one can make the argument but saying that [where there is no evidence for] that banning military grade weapons increases crime...

The average person can still have pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles and semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15... there is no limit on the amount of guns nor ammo one can have within reason, thus this weaponry, if one is proficient is more than enough for personal, family and property protection.


You have some who say, IT IS TYRANNY IF WE CANNOT HAVE MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS!!!!! - - That is not a view I share, but everyone is entitled to their own view.

Then you have another view, which you may or may not agree with, that takes it pass firearms, and wants "any" weapon the military can have, one woman that I was debating before said, since the government - - military - can have nuclear weapons that we should be able to to.

While I do not know if you share this view, you would forgive my worry of what need does the average person need with nuclear weapons, then you have to weigh that vs the general welfare of the radiation poisoning just from being around it if not properly maintained, and if such a bit of the chemicals gets into a water supply, can kill an entire city within a matter of days - so I fear this idea that it is tyrannical if we cannot get any and all weapons that our military has. - just as I worry what need would the average citizen need with a minigun which can weigh between 47-85 lbs, that can fire 2,000-6,000 rounds per minute.. surely not for home safety, if someone breaks in your home, you are more likely to grab a shotgun, the assault rifle, pistol.. not a gun that you have to lug ...

I apologize for being long-winded, I tend to debate this quite often of.. if you ban any weapon for the average person then it is big government and crime, which "any" is without merit, saying making it harder to get legal weapons may show higher crime rates, is an argument I can understand, but saying if you do not allow us any and all guns under the sun then that is big government and tyranny is an argument that I have never gotten.
NyanPuppy's avatar
Well, there's a difference, Nukes would be considered bombs, not firearms. And Miniguns are for people with Giant wallets, and have time for a shitton of paper work. Same goes for any Automatic Weapon. And no, disarming citizens leads to Tyranny, let's say this were Russia, okay? So Stalin disarms Farmers... And then he rounds us up to murder us. You must be thinking "Well, that's a commy country" but truth is, it could happen to any country. Just that you don't see it happen to a democracy that often.
AtheosEmanon's avatar
As I said, that specific woman thought that if the military had it that we should be able to as well. She thought since the founding fathers could not fathom those weapons that IF they could at the time they would have allowed for the average citizen to have such - it is a very persuasive argument if we are utilizing a militia for the first line of defense, and did not have a standing military nor department of intelligence to gather information, and the like ... as we do today.

It is a bit of a false comparison sir, though I admit I find some hilarity when people go straight to Stalin or Hitler. When these two man did it they banned all weapons not just military grade weapons [though the average soldier walked around with a pistol or revolver at the time...] If you look at today, and sir, I ask that we be honest of the terms, Pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, semi-autos are, were still, and will still be allowed for ownership after the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, they would have still been allowed when those Republicans in 2008 wanted to reinstate the assault weapons ban [H.R. 6257], and with the discussion now..

So it is nothing like Stalin, sir, I would have hoped that the gun debate has passed the stage where we keep using Stalin and comparing apples to oranges.

" So Stalin disarms Farmers... And then he rounds us up to murder us."
Well sir, I can assure you that
1- Stalin is long since dead thus shall not be passing any more orders in Russia, of which I hold lineage there - I had family that were members of the Stalin Army, and many others who were killed by Stalin's purges.
2- You and I have not been, nor will we be rounded up by Stalin... who is dead and never rounded anyone up personally.

It has nothing to do with it being a "communist country" or a Fascist one, it has to do with the leaders and their views, and what they would have done. I am a student of history sir, as well as am well versed in guns and gun politics.

I would like realistic comparisons rather than the Stalin ones.

As stated, as the constitution stated, they left it up to congress and the supreme court to determine whether or not something is constitutional, the SCOTUS has stated that a ban on all guns would be unconstitutional as the people would not be able to bear arms, yet that a regulation and civilian ban on military grade weapons for the average person which they applied to the general welfare clause of the constitution in saying was not unconstitutional in its inception.

I reiterate a point that revolvers, pistols, shotguns, rifles, semi auto assault rifles will all still be legal and if used with experience will stop an intruder, protect your home, family, and home.. one of my favorite quotes on guns, was written by a socialist, Eugene V. Debs.
“The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms… You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man.”
-Eugene V. Debs


Now, it says you have the right to own guns, which is true, no one has ever denied we have a right to own guns, but as just as there is limitations to the first amendment [no yelling fire in a crowded theater is the often cited one] the Supreme court has said that there can also be limits without violating of the second amendment when looking at the amendment from a modern standpoint and speaking of weapons that our founders could not even fathom.

I can assure sir, that as per your journal on your page that I am not stupid. I am well versed in the matters at hand, and am well versed in their history and their usage of terms... though I am a bit surprised that you blame liberals and big government for it, Was it not, sir. Ronald Reagan that advocated and signed the Mulford Act which banned the carry of guns in public when he was governor? Was it not George Bush 41 who advocated for the stopping of imports of assault weapons when he was president... I do not see this as a liberal, or conservative problem, sir. I see this as a national issue that should be addressed.

I am sure you and I could come up with sensible regulations, such as perhaps a background checks, even most NRA members say people should get a background check before owning guns yet 40% of guns according to the ATF in a 2010 study, are bought without background checks..
NyanPuppy's avatar
Look, don't mean to be an ass, but I'm not gonna read all that.
AtheosEmanon's avatar
To each their own, good evening, sir.
NyanPuppy's avatar
Good evening to you too.