4 ms·

I would agree with the training part, I would have no issue at having training be a requirement. The rest I have to disagree on simply because I don't view nuc

by talmand 12y ago

I would agree with the training part, I would have no issue at having training be a requirement. The rest I have to disagree on simply because I don't view nuclear weapons, and other primarily military-based weapons (air-to-air missiles being one), as "arms". Like I said, it all matters on how you define that particular term. Obviously you have your definition and I have mine. Thus, the eternal debate.

logfromblammo 12y ago
Your attitude allows existing rights to be eroded, circumscribed, or eliminated entirely by manipulating the colloquially accepted definitions of dictionary words. An arm is a weapon. The right to bear arms is the right to carry weapons. If you would like to redefine "arms" to exclude certain types of weaponry, surely you have no problems redefining "speech" to include making cash payments to political campaigns and to exclude publishing written content to the Internet? Or perhaps you would like to redefine "unreasonable search and seizure" to exclude the collection, retention, and analysis of all packet headers and unencrypted content transmitted across the public networks? Or maybe a "speedy and public trial" will take place in secret, using secret evidence, without the assistance of counsel, by the military, at Guantanamo Bay. Consider that you may be part of the problem. The existence of nuclear, chemical, biological, electromagnetic, and radioactivity weapons demand that the amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms be amended, not reinterpreted or ignored. They are, unequivocally, arms. And those arms are arguably too dangerous for any single individual to own or control without restriction. Saying they are not "arms" is simply a lie for political expediency, and undermines the rule of law and the constitutional system of government. Our collective unwillingness to revise old laws to make them more applicable to current conditions has led to patches and workarounds of dubious worth, and to some people equating fully automatic rifles with nuclear bombs. The "ongoing debate" generates ambiguity, which is exploited by political parasites to our detriment. We cannot afford to endlessly argue. It can be settled conclusively, to be reconsidered later, whenever progress demands it. All we need to agree upon is exactly what sorts of arms are too dangerous for a randomly selected individual to possess, and apply that standard equally to all people, including those with badges or rank insignia.
- talmand 12y ago
  I'm late getting back to this but I laugh at your so-called ability to determine my attitude and opinion about anything based on a few sentences you read on a web page. You do not know me, you do not speak for me, and you surely do not have the ability to tell me what I think about any particular subject. I can easily extend your definition of arms to mean anything and everything, which in the end makes it mean nothing. I believe you protest too much.

by talmand 12y ago

logfromblammo 12y ago

Your attitude allows existing rights to be eroded, circumscribed, or eliminated entirely by manipulating the colloquially accepted definitions of dictionary words. An arm is a weapon. The right to bear arms is the right to carry weapons. If you would like to redefine "arms" to exclude certain types of weaponry, surely you have no problems redefining "speech" to include making cash payments to political campaigns and to exclude publishing written content to the Internet? Or perhaps you would like to redefine "unreasonable search and seizure" to exclude the collection, retention, and analysis of all packet headers and unencrypted content transmitted across the public networks? Or maybe a "speedy and public trial" will take place in secret, using secret evidence, without the assistance of counsel, by the military, at Guantanamo Bay. Consider that you may be part of the problem. The existence of nuclear, chemical, biological, electromagnetic, and radioactivity weapons demand that the amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms be amended, not reinterpreted or ignored. They are, unequivocally, arms. And those arms are arguably too dangerous for any single individual to own or control without restriction. Saying they are not "arms" is simply a lie for political expediency, and undermines the rule of law and the constitutional system of government. Our collective unwillingness to revise old laws to make them more applicable to current conditions has led to patches and workarounds of dubious worth, and to some people equating fully automatic rifles with nuclear bombs. The "ongoing debate" generates ambiguity, which is exploited by political parasites to our detriment. We cannot afford to endlessly argue. It can be settled conclusively, to be reconsidered later, whenever progress demands it. All we need to agree upon is exactly what sorts of arms are too dangerous for a randomly selected individual to possess, and apply that standard equally to all people, including those with badges or rank insignia.

talmand 12y ago
I'm late getting back to this but I laugh at your so-called ability to determine my attitude and opinion about anything based on a few sentences you read on a web page. You do not know me, you do not speak for me, and you surely do not have the ability to tell me what I think about any particular subject. I can easily extend your definition of arms to mean anything and everything, which in the end makes it mean nothing. I believe you protest too much.