A bipartianship petition and friendly hand extended to fellow Americans

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Hand grenades are ineffective for your average criminal. They want to kill them person near them, not kill themselves in the process. When someone wants to rob a liquor store, they don't want to blow up the money they're attempting to steal and scatter it over a 20 foot radius. It's easier to take when it's in a stack then when it's strewn about.

No, the reason hand grenades are not used in most crime is not because they're illegal. Besides, you've apparently never heard of pipe bombs. They're fairly easy to make, if explosives were effective tools of petty crime compared to handguns, you'd see pipe bomb stories in the news all the time.

Same goes for rocket launchers. Who's going to spend thousands of dollars on a single use weapon to steal $100? Stop using silly, pointless arguments.

Duh that hand grenades are not for average crimes, that's why they aren't used holdups much, they're used by drunken teens, by gangs against police and such.

You gun haters try to weasel around by saying that a pipe bomb is as good as a hand grenade - what's next, a bullet is a bullet so a handgun is as good as a machine gun?

You don't see the military arming troops with pipe bombs, tjhsy use hand grenades. Why do you want to deny the protection to our citizens and only let criminals have them?

Actually, I think Americans should be able to own any weapon they can afford. Why can't you trust your neighbor with a grenade? He has a kitchen full of knives, yet you can obviously sleep at night so you trust him with knives. Would he immediately turn into a violent psychopath after contact with a grenade?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic
The military has used pipe bombs. Bangalore torpedoes, which are essentially a pipe bomb on the end of a pole, were common in WWII.

Regardless, explosives are ordnance, not arms.

Nice try, gun hater, but you can't deny the people their hand grenades so easily. Your own argument shows how limited the use of pipe bombs is, going back to WWII.

Look, I'll ask you to stand behind your claim: do you agree that hand grenades should be legalized, since they are 'useless for crime', especially when pipe bombs are easy?

What possible argument could you make why hand grenades should be banned for honest citizens?

"Gun hater"??? Troll, troll, troll, troll. Clearly you won't stop and I'm not interested in feeding you anymore.

I will finish with this:

The "possible argument" you're looking for has already been given to you, you're just trollishly refusing to acknowledge it. Private ownership of hand grenades is not protected by law. Private ownership of handguns, rifles, and other arms, however, is protected in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
Don't troll further with this bullsh!t about how hand grenades (or rocket launchers) are "arms." That's factually incorrect, and you only make yourself look even more stupid by insisting on it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Vic
If they are so easily available, then why do you need for me to find them in order to justify your argument? My argument, that gun laws do not affect murder rates, is solidly proven by the evidence. As I care more about murders and crime rates in general than in proving some ideological point (as you do), I don't see how your call for a firearms specific rate has any bearing on this argument. It's not relevant to me if gun bans cause people start murdering each other with knives, clubs, sticks, stones, or bare hands.

Then you are simply not answering whether you agree that the weapon bans have any effect on the rates of criminals owning them or their use in murders.

You are off making your own point that has nothing to do with anything I posted, about the correlation between weapons laws and overall murder rates.

Fine, but stop putting your unrelated comments following quotes from my posts having nothing to do with your comments, as if you are disagreeing with my post.

For example, when I post about firearms murder rates and you quote it and post about overall murder rates, you are misrepresenting what I said.

Too ban you run away from the questions I posed, but that's your choice.

Article V has everything to do with this argument. That's how you can deal with the 2nd Amendment if you don't like it.

You claimed the 2nd amendment "clearly defined" the word "arms". In fact, I mentioned that the 2nd amendment has *no* definition of the word "arms", clear or unclear.

I asked you to quote the "clearly defined" definition you said is there for certain weapons, and you did not, instead you only say 'here's how to amend the constitution'.

That doesn't show any 'clear definition' of "arms", for automatics, semi-automatics, handguns or the other types of weapons under controversy for the unclear definition.

So, you failed to prove your point.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic
If they are so easily available, then why do you need for me to find them in order to justify your argument? My argument, that gun laws do not affect murder rates, is solidly proven by the evidence. As I care more about murders and crime rates in general than in proving some ideological point (as you do), I don't see how your call for a firearms specific rate has any bearing on this argument. It's not relevant to me if gun bans cause people start murdering each other with knives, clubs, sticks, stones, or bare hands.

Then you are simply not answering whether you agree that the weapon bans have any effect on the rates of criminals owning them or their use in murders.

You are off making your own point that has nothing to do with anything I posted, about the correlation between weapons laws and overall murder rates.

Fine, but stop putting your unrelated comments following quotes from my posts having nothing to do with your comments, as if you are disagreeing with my post.

For example, when I post about firearms murder rates and you quote it and post about overall murder rates, you are misrepresenting what I said.

Too ban you run away from the questions I posed, but that's your choice.

Article V has everything to do with this argument. That's how you can deal with the 2nd Amendment if you don't like it.

You claimed the 2nd amendment "clearly defined" the word "arms". In fact, I mentioned that the 2nd amendment has *no* definition of the word "arms", clear or unclear.

I asked you to quote the "clearly defined" definition you said is there, and you did not, instead you only say 'here's how to amend the constitution'.

You lose the argument.

Wow...

I did NOT say that the 2nd amendment clearly defined the word "arms."
What I said was:

the meaning of the word "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment is clearly defined.

Which it is.

I love the last sentence of yours there. Proof positive that you are a troll. If you actually "won" this argument, you wouldn't have to announce it, now would you?


edit: LOL! nice edit on your part. Too bad it was too late :laugh:

I did prove my point, thank you very much. Firearms are arms and thus protected by the 2nd amendment, rocket launchers, grenades and tanks are not arms and thus not so protected. That was my point.

 

[Arkaign]

I've been trying to review the recent pages on the gun/constitution/laws/murder issues, but I'm having a hard time seeing what each of your perpectives actually are. Could you give me a cliffs notes version?

Mine :

I think the constitution (I'm NOT an expert by any means) allows for private ownership of guns (rifles, handguns, whatever).

I think that anyone convicted of a violent offense should be permanently prevented from purchasing one legally (of course they could always get one illegally, as happens daily).

I think that anyone found in possession of an illegally-obtained firearm that is also a previous violent offender should get a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence. Sadly, this will likely still not be enough to prevent many needless deaths, but the limits of laws are pretty clear by this point.

I think that banning guns outright would have very little positive effect, if any, and may even cause an increase in firearms deaths, as criminals would probably gain the feeling that law-abiding citizens would no longer have any protection. Here in Texas, there are frequent stories of home-invasion crimes, of which maybe 20% (guessing here) involve some fatality or serious injury.

As for other weapons (grenades, etc), they are fairly rarely used in domestic crime, correct? I'm not sure why this issue is even on the table. But maybe I missed something. I don't think they ever sold grenades at your local wal-mart, and that inventories of such weapons have been pretty well controlled over the decades.

Meh, anyway what are your stands on these issues?

 

[Craig234]

did NOT say that the 2nd amendment clearly defined the word "arms."
What I said was:

quote:
the meaning of the word "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment is clearly defined.

So, you agree that the word "arms" is used in the second amendment, without any definition of it in the constitution.

Any definition comes from *outside* the constitution, and is subject to debate about how 'clear' or accurate it is.

Back to the topic of your claim: where, exactly, is it "clearly defined" whether the word arms in the second amendment protects automatic weapons? hand grenades? semi-automatic weapons? handguns? Shotguns and more? What is your proof that the source you cite is authoratative for defining the word in the constitution?

It'll be interesting to hear how you explain that you presumably would include automatic weapons in the word "arms", yet the Supreme Court said the definition did not include automatic weapons - implying that since there's such disagreement over what it includes, it's not "clearly defined" as used in the second amendment, as you claim.

 

[Craig234]

edit: LOL! nice edit

Sorry, I sometimes wordsmith a post with an edit, but I stand by the text I originally posted that you quoted, no problem.

I did prove my point, thank you very much. Firearms are arms and thus protected by the 2nd amendment, rocket launchers, grenades and tanks are not arms and thus not so protected. That was my point.

*My* point was that the argument that weapons laws are useless is clearly true by all the rocket launchers, AK-47's and such in the possession of criminals and used for crime today; what weapons the 2nd amendment includes is irrelevant to the topic I was discussing, the uselessness of the gun laws.

When someone commented that you can get banned weapons from other countries, I expanded the point to agree that clearly, other countries with strict gun laws are flooded with the illegal guns, imported from the US. That's why Britain and other nations with handgun bans have just as many handguns and handgun murders per capita as the US.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

did NOT say that the 2nd amendment clearly defined the word "arms."
What I said was:

quote:
the meaning of the word "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment is clearly defined.

So, you agree that the word "arms" is used in the second amendment, without any definition of it in the constitution.

Any definition comes from *outside* the constitution, and is subject to debate about how 'clear' or accurate it is.

Back to the topic of your claim: where, exactly, is it "clearly defined" whether the word arms in the second amendment protects automatic weapons? hand grenades? semi-automatic weapons? handguns? Shotguns and more? What is your proof that the source you cite is authoratative for defining the word in the constitution?

It'll be interesting to hear how you explain that you presumably would include automatic weapons in the word "arms", yet the Supreme Court said the definition did not include automatic weapons - implying that since there's such disagreement over what it includes, it's not "clearly defined" as used in the second amendment, as you claim.

Oh WTF dumbass... the world "people" isn't defined *inside* the Constitution either.

 

[Craig234]

I've been trying to review the recent pages on the gun/constitution/laws/murder issues, but I'm having a hard time seeing what each of your perpectives actually are. Could you give me a cliffs notes version?

Not really, it's a complicated topic I was just responding to the claims that:

- laws have no effect on criminals owning weapons, as if the supply is infinite
- laws have no effect on criminals owneing weapons, because they can be smuggled from other nations without any impact on availability
- the word 'arms' in the second amendment is clearly defined

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

I've been trying to review the recent pages on the gun/constitution/laws/murder issues, but I'm having a hard time seeing what each of your perpectives actually are. Could you give me a cliffs notes version?

Not really, it's a complicated topic I was just responding to the claims that:

- laws have no effect on criminals owning weapons, as if the supply is infinite
- laws have no effect on criminals owneing weapons, because they can be smuggled from other nations without any impact on availability
- the word 'arms' in the second amendment is clearly defined

Yep, in countries where guns are illegal, people just murder each other with sticks and stones!

I know you think you're being witty, but that's only in your own mind. In reality, you look like an ideological extremist with an asshole complex.

 

[Craig234]

Oh WTF dumbass... the world "people" isn't defined *inside* the Constitution either.

Did I mention you can tell those who are desperate by trying to use name-calling instead of an argument? Why, yes I did, and you are.

We already agreed to look for what's 'clearly defined' by looking outside the constitution.

Would you like to compare the 'clearly defined' word "people", with how clearly defined the word "arms" is, when it comes to the huge variety of weapons - not only the automatic, semi-automatic, and handguns I mentioned, but 'zip guns', AK-47's, military-grade sniper rifles, and more?

Even two sticks with a string, nunchakas, are a crime for me to possess in California - so they fall below the definition of 'arms'? How are these all 'clearly' in or out?

The funny thing is, you actually stumbled into a point that shouldn't be a point. The word people *should* be clearly defined, but it's not. Some corporate lawyers in 1886 got it snuck into the law that corporations are legal 'people', and with this they caused great harm to our nation by preventing the citizens from regulating corporations nearly as much.

So, apparently, we do need to put a clearer definition of "people" in the constitution, since the one that the founding fathers used left a *huge* loophole to the great harm of our nation.

 

[Vic]

I'm not desperate at all. I always insult trolling like that. Like the classic e-thug troll, you're engaging in a level of insultingly fallacious argument that, in real life, would lead to your (or anyone's for that matter) pussy momma's-basement-dwelling ass being beaten into an emergency room. You think you can get away with it from behind the safety of your monitor, I know, and such is the way that I can strike back that hurts you most (i.e. through your weak self-esteem).

 

[Craig234]

Well vic, you have ended any response from me with breaking one of my forum rules, against references to RL violence.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Well vic, you have ended any response from me with breaking one of my forum rules, against references to RL violence.

LOL! Hey, you won't have to worry about your ungentlemanly behavior as long as you continue to stay away from RL and do all your thuggery while hiding behind your monitor.

 

[BoberFett]

What is your point Craig? You're all over the place, from crime statistics to definitions to blatant strawmen. Maybe if you had a point it could be addressed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What is your point Craig? You're all over the place, from crime statistics to definitions to blatant strawmen. Maybe if you had a point it could be addressed.

His point is to mock people by inventing straw men for their points. That's about the only point he's made in this thread.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What is your point Craig? You're all over the place, from crime statistics to definitions to blatant strawmen. Maybe if you had a point it could be addressed.

They were laid out pretty clearly, BoberFett. I understand someone like Vic is just lost.

There were no straw men in my posts. I responded to some, though.

Which of these were you unclear on in my posts and I'll try to spell it out again later:

- laws have no effect on criminals owning weapons, as if the supply is infinite
- laws have no effect on criminals owneing weapons, because they can be smuggled from other nations without any impact on availability
- the word 'arms' in the second amendment is clearly defined

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What is your point Craig? You're all over the place, from crime statistics to definitions to blatant strawmen. Maybe if you had a point it could be addressed.

They were laid out pretty clearly, BoberFett. I understand someone like Vic is just lost.

There were no straw men in my posts. I responded to some, though.

Which of these were you unclear on in my posts and I'll try to spell it out again later:

- laws have no effect on criminals owning weapons, as if the supply is infinite
- laws have no effect on criminals owneing weapons, because they can be smuggled from other nations without any impact on availability
- the word 'arms' in the second amendment is clearly defined

You realize the reason that all those are straw men is because no one said any of those but you, right?