Quote:
Originally Posted by NevadaSTi
I didn't say anything about shoulder fired (RPG) rockets or other devices designed for such things. I am talking about our rights citizens of this country.
Would I like to have a full-auto firearm, sure. Can I get one, sure. Can I get one legally, sure. Does it mean I will, probably not.
As for my arguements being weak, ok that is your opinion. As for argueing with people on the internet, it is a total waste of time. Some people are so caught up in themselves and what they believe, they feel it is their right to try to force their opinions on others.
This will be the last time I post in this waste of time thread.
|
I think he means that your argument is weak from a support standpoint.
You said "I am an Avid supporter of our second amendmant rights. This country would not be free if we didn't have it or any of the other rights per the Constitution." There is very little evidence that we would not be free today without the 2nd amendment... additionally even if it were true, you can't prove what might have happened, therefore making your statement logically weak. Finally, attempting to argue that "the only thing preventing us from losing our freedom is the 2nd amendment" is exactly the same "appeal to fear" logic that you were arguing against.
I too support gun ownership. I believe that as free individuals we should be allowed to do whatever we want until it infringes on another's right to do whatever they want. Since person A owning a gun doesn't make any difference with the rights of person B to live their life, then gun ownership should be legal. But if person A uses a gun to shoot person B, they have violated the absolute base tenet of a free non-anarchistic society by removing person B's right to live, and therefore should be heavily punished.
I actually think the supreme court did a pretty damn good job with this ruling. By acknowledging that gun ownership is considered a basic Constitutional right of a citizen, they protect the erosion of people's rights in general. They affirm that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, and that people have the right to live as they see fit until their actions impinge on others. But the decision is also a reminder that with the right to free choice comes the necessity to take responsibility for your actions. If you are a criminal you give up your right to free choice, at least in terms of owning a gun. And with that comes things like waiting periods, gun registration, etc. If you want to own a gun, the gov't can't stop you, but the gov't does have the right to be reasonably sure that you will be a law abiding gun owner. And while that rubs me the wrong way a little bit, I think that's an acceptable compromise, so long as it's recognized that it's unconstitutional to deny gun ownership on a broad or non-specific basis.