Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?

[Nanny]

[Kitan Etos]

I also believe most have good intent.

I am a misanthrope for a reason, because if most people had good intent they would act to change things instead of behaving like a god that prefers to pretend nothing is wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sure ... when you restrict your free speech to parchment or the unaided voice.

Some people post shit at 120/minute.

So I see.

---

What do you mean by "unaided voice"? Not sure what you mean by this, but below is what I am seeing. Feel free to correct me if i got it wrong.

The government is there to protect the voice of all sides, thus the First Amendment, the First Amendment does not say "Only when one sect of a population gets everything they want 100% of the time".

I was addressing the "musket" comment. If the right to own guns was intended to be limited to the technology available at the time (i.e. muskets), then by extension, so too would be the right to free speech (i.e., no protection when speaking over PA systems or writing on the internet).

To address the implication in your reply, my support for the right to own guns doesn't mean that I support the untrammelled right to own guns, or more powerful equipment. All rights have limits, and that is a good thing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Go easy on yourself, T.hump.

[Jackie]

Some people post shit at 120/minute.

So I see.

---

What do you mean by "unaided voice"? Not sure what you mean by this, but below is what I am seeing. Feel free to correct me if i got it wrong.

The government is there to protect the voice of all sides, thus the First Amendment, the First Amendment does not say "Only when one sect of a population gets everything they want 100% of the time".

I was addressing the "musket" comment. If the right to own guns was intended to be limited to the technology available at the time (i.e. muskets), then by extension, so too would be the right to free speech (i.e., no protection when speaking over PA systems or writing on the internet).

To address the implication in your reply, my support for the right to own guns doesn't mean that I support the untrammelled right to own guns, or more powerful equipment. All rights have limits, and that is a good thing.

Right, and I agree, but right now at this point in history, it is way out of hand.

[Jeanne]

I agree, Brian, you and I both have a right to discuss our viewpoints....for now. Those same powerful people who seek to remove our 2nd amendment rights have been hard at work for many years attempting to do away with our right to speak freely. If you haven't noticed that, then maybe you aren't noticing much that those who would see a Communist America have been doing bit by bit, nudge by nudge...progressive tactics well learned over a century.

I find it interesting, GS, that you went automatically from gun rights to prayer. Do you think those who support our 2nd amendment must be theists in reality? I don't pray because I am an atheist, but damn right that sounds like an amazing firearm!

I find it odd that a gun enthusiast like yourself links other atheists who own guns with theists. Why do you own guns? Why do you have what seems to be some superior attitude about your gun ownership? Why do you believe that only you can own guns and speak about guns and the 2nd in a rational manner? Will your guns not fire bullets into living flesh with the goal of killing?

Another poster just said it was past time that all guns be removed from those of us, who own them. Did they mean from you, as well? Do you believe that will ensure a safer world? No...you aren't that naive, are you?

If it is crime that you mean to scour from the nation, then talk about those tactics that actually work. Our courts should prosecute petty crimes committed with firearms to the fullest extent possible. Assault with a gun handled the same. Then we could begin on crimes committed with knives and when the criminals start using acid, the courts could prosecute them again to the fullest extent possible. Soon...only law-abiding citizens will own guns and knives and acid and the criminal element of society will be totally outlawed and banned. Or something like that...kind of, maybe, possibly...

Yes...let us get all the guns out of the hands of criminals first.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree, Brian, you and I both have a right to discuss our viewpoints....for now.  Those same powerful people who seek to remove our 2nd amendment rights have been hard at work for many years attempting to do away with our right to speak freely.  If you haven't noticed that, then maybe you aren't noticing much that those who would see a Communist America have been doing bit by bit, nudge by nudge...progressive tactics well learned over a century.

I find it interesting, GS, that you went automatically from gun rights to prayer.  Do you think those who support our 2nd amendment must be theists in reality?  I don't pray because I am an atheist, but damn right that sounds like an amazing firearm!  

I find it odd that a gun enthusiast like yourself links other atheists who own guns with theists.  Why do you own guns?  Why do you have what seems to be some superior attitude about your gun ownership?  Why do you believe that only you can own guns and speak about guns and the 2nd in a rational manner?  Will your guns not fire bullets into living flesh with the goal of killing?

Another poster just said it was past time that all guns be removed from those of us, who own them.  Did they mean from you, as well?  Do you believe that will ensure a safer world?  No...you aren't that naive, are you?

If it is crime that you mean to scour from the nation, then talk about those tactics that actually work.  Our courts should prosecute petty crimes committed with firearms to the fullest extent possible.  Assault with a gun handled the same.  Then we could begin on crimes committed with knives and when the criminals start using acid, the courts could prosecute them again to the fullest extent possible.  Soon...only law-abiding citizens will own guns and knives and acid and the criminal element of society will be totally outlawed and banned.  Or something like that...kind of, maybe, possibly...

Yes...let us get all the guns out of the hands of criminals first.

We don't have to wait for one to do the other. Has anyone said we need to cure heart disease before working on cancer? Of course not.

[Jackie]

[Nanny]

Brian - it's a simple fact that there are loads of firearms in the USA. No amount of internet writing will change that.

Deaths from any cause that can be prevented should be a very grave concern for all of us. Nobody is arguing that it's not. You're either misreading or misrepresenting statements.

You're upset because you think there are too many guns. We get it. You think that anyone who tries to engage in civil discussion about it is a RWNJ. You're entitled to that opinion but it is a very narrow view.

There are obvious gaps in your understanding of how firearms are regulated. For some reason you view these facts as an attack on your position. They're not. These are just facts.

You argue that the law needs to evolve. I have pointed out that it does evolve. Legal precedent is how laws and our interpretation of them evolve. It is settled law that the 2A applies to individuals and it is incorporated to the states. This is the law of the land. Yes, it may change, but all future litigation has to consider Heller and McDonald, whether anyone likes it or not.

Then you get personal and position your arguments in absolute terms. If you disagree with Brian you're a blood thirsty irresponsible right wing nutjob who values objects over lives. This sounds like a page out of the SJW playbook. And it's muddling the personal with the facts. It's akin to saying if you're not with Brian, you're against Brian. This is a false dichotomy.

You seem to judge rather than think.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right, and I agree, but right now at this point in history, it is way out of hand.

But people aren't allowed to own machine guns or howitzers.