2
   

Mexico Calls On the US to Violate Our Constitutional Gun Rights

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 11:58 pm
Really, David? It's your contention that Mexican drug gangsters are the "people" the 2nd amendment is talking about? On what grounds do you base that contention? Is it your contention that selling a gun to a foreign criminal somehow falls within "keep and bear arms"? It is neither keeping the arm, nor bearing it. It's getting rid of it to someone else who is not an American citizen. And the US Government has the right to regulate trade.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:04 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Really, David?
Really, Jack.




MontereyJack wrote:
It's your contention that Mexican drug gangsters are the "people" the 2nd amendment is talking about?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! The VERDUGO case is explicity clear on that point.





MontereyJack wrote:
On what grounds do you base that contention?
I said that 's not my contention.



MontereyJack wrote:
Is it your contention that selling a gun to a foreign criminal somehow falls within "keep and bear arms"?
No; it falls within "shall not be infringed."
It woud divest government of any jd over personal weapons,
except for the fact that it had no such jd even b4 either the 2nd Amendment or the 9th Amendment.
Its the same as expressing your religious opinions to aliens;
none of government 's damned business.




MontereyJack wrote:
It is neither keeping the arm, nor bearing it.
It's getting rid of it to someone else who is not an American citizen.
And the US Government has the right to regulate trade.
Everything in the Constitution of 1787 is subordinate to the Bill of Rights,
all of which consists of amendments = CHANGES.





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 03:07 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.


This is doubtful. By stopping the easy trade of guns across the border, you increase there cost. The more it costs to get an assault weapon, the fewer there will be.


I don't see how it increases the cost. What's the price of a full-auto AK-47 from Latin America? $50?

And even if it actually did increase the cost, the drugs gangs would still be able to afford more AK-47s than they could use.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 03:09 am
@hamburgboy,
hamburgboy wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.


the mexican drug lords will be pleased to hear that they are being permitted to carry guns - i'm sure they consider themselves to be " free " people .


Indeed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 03:16 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I do not believe David was a lawyer not do I believe he is a member of Mensa.


I do not believe I've ever seen plainoldme base an argument on facts instead of on silly allegations against other posters.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 03:24 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
oralloy, I'm sure somewhere in the AMERICAN Constitution it says that arming MEXICAN drug lords is an inalienable right of all Americans. I just can't find it. Do you think you could tell me what clause it is? I know you're a profound scholar of American rights, so I'm sure you can tell me off the top of your head.


There is no prohibition against outlawing the sale of weapons to Mexican drug lords.

The prohibition is against outlawing the sale of assault weapons to American citizens.

What Mexico was asking for was a prohibition on the sale of assault weapons to American citizens.

If there were a way to block the sale of weapons to Mexican drug lords, which didn't inconvenience Americans who wanted to buy assault weapons for themselves, that would likely pass constitutional muster.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 03:41 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
ebrown p wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.


This is doubtful. By stopping the easy trade of guns across the border, you increase there cost. The more it costs to get an assault weapon, the fewer there will be.


I don't see how it increases the cost. What's the price of a full-auto AK-47 from Latin America? $50?

And even if it actually did increase the cost, the drugs gangs would still be able to afford more AK-47s than they could use.


There is one thing the drug gangs get from the US that they can't easily get somewhere else: those FN 57 handguns that chew up Kevlar.

But since they do not have any of the cosmetic features central to the definition of "assault weapon", they would not be banned by the called-for ban on assault weapons.

There was a thread on them here, once upon a time, though there were a lot of hyperbolic descriptions of the guns that were cut-n-pasted from a freedom-hater website, so not everything in the thread is accurate:

http://able2know.org/topic/46800-1
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 05:49 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

failures art wrote:
oralloy wrote:
However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.

This confidence is your first error. The errors that follow it are mostly in your misunderstanding of the US constitution and on the definition of "freedom."

A
R
T


There is zero chance that I've misunderstood the Constitution.

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.

Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.


Nothing but cognitive dissonance. You are attempting to rationalize this out of the inability to resolve your conflicted views.

The idea that they would get guns elsewhere is not the point. The point is that the drug lords get their guns from us. We are accessory to the violence taking place in Mexico and the violence that is spilling over into the US. It seems then even more idiotic to then see the increased threat brought by the lax rules and regulations and then say that Americans should have greater access to firearms, when making firearms so easily accessible is what has enabled the drug lords to arm their mafias in the first place.

You're doing laps here.

A
R
T
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 07:01 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

oralloy wrote:

failures art wrote:
oralloy wrote:
However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.

This confidence is your first error. The errors that follow it are mostly in your misunderstanding of the US constitution and on the definition of "freedom."

A
R
T


There is zero chance that I've misunderstood the Constitution.

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.

Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.


Nothing but cognitive dissonance. You are attempting to rationalize this out of the inability to resolve your conflicted views.

The idea that they would get guns elsewhere is not the point. The point is that the drug lords get their guns from us. We are accessory to the violence taking place in Mexico and the violence that is spilling over into the US. It seems then even more idiotic to then see the increased threat brought by the lax rules and regulations and then say that Americans should have greater access to firearms, when making firearms so easily accessible is what has enabled the drug lords to arm their mafias in the first place.

You're doing laps here.

A
R
T
NO. We don 't "say that Americans should have greater access to firearms";
we say that as a condition of its existence upon the event of its creation,
government was deprived of ANY jurisdiction over personal armament.





David
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 07:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Aside from the USSC who would disagree with your armament-creation theory, I must object on additional logical grounds.

Ownership of a flamethrower for self defense would be covered in your argument, but the balance of interests of the individual and the state would be thrown off kilter by the private ownership of armaments that can create such great collateral damage. Similarly, the ownership of RPGs or hand grenades would create a problem.

Yes, I am an engineer. As such, I feel the need to convey that in the end, any weapon is engineered. Engineering is more than the fabrication, it is the specific drafting of a refinement of a tool to a specific purpose. Having said that, it is foolish to say that all guns are engineered to the same objective. I will certainly agree that many firearms are designed for the self-defense of an individual, however to ignore that more advanced weaponry's primary design objective is to attack/assault is ignorant. Certainly, the creators of the AK-47 or M-14 do not market their product as anything but the best option for a military to use to attack. My point here is that engineering acknowledges that a piece of technology is tailored for context. A state/country has a compelling interest in controlling access to armament which is not DESIGNED for self defense.

Mexican drug lords aren't buying guns for defense. They aren't buying these specific weapons because they are good for defense; they select these weapons for the purpose of attack.

A
Ratatat
T
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 07:38 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
oralloy wrote:
failures art wrote:
oralloy wrote:
However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.


This confidence is your first error. The errors that follow it are mostly in your misunderstanding of the US constitution and on the definition of "freedom."

A
R
T


There is zero chance that I've misunderstood the Constitution.

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.

Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.


Nothing but cognitive dissonance. You are attempting to rationalize this out of the inability to resolve your conflicted views.


There is no conflict in my views.

Americans, being the only free people on the planet, have the right to have assault weapons.

And our right to have assault weapons does not cause anyone any harm.

Where's the conflict?



failures art wrote:
The idea that they would get guns elsewhere is not the point.


The fact that they would get the same guns from somewhere else is pretty relevant to any argument that used "preventing them from getting those guns" as a reason to end American freedom.



failures art wrote:
The idea that they would get guns elsewhere is not the point. The point is that the drug lords get their guns from us. We are accessory to the violence taking place in Mexico and the violence that is spilling over into the US. It seems then even more idiotic to then see the increased threat brought by the lax rules and regulations and then say that Americans should have greater access to firearms, when making firearms so easily accessible is what has enabled the drug lords to arm their mafias in the first place.

You're doing laps here.

A
R
T


There are two errors there. First, there is no "increased threat" due to American gun laws.

And second, American gun laws did nothing to enable the arming of drug gangs. They are able to acquire the same guns (except for the FN 57) just as easily without America.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 07:45 am
@oralloy,
Your post is ignorant of the facts. The end of the Assault Weapon Ban did have an effect on this issue. Drug lords used its expiration to get these weapons. We are arming the drug cartels. Denying this is ignorant. Saying that they could get the weapon's elsewhere is rationalizing, but cowardly. We've enabled them. There's no excuse.

As for the USA being the only free country and that freedom coming from our right to own assault weapons. (1) We are not the only country that allows for ownership of said weapons so how are we the only free country, (2) plenty of assault weapons in Africa, Central America, and South America, pretty clear absence of many freedoms, and lastly (3) many countries that do not have guns are far more free than us (Japan, England, etc) and safer as well.

A
R
T
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 07:46 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
Aside from the USSC who would disagree with your armament-creation theory,


I'm pretty sure the Constitution never granted the federal government jurisdiction over guns beyond the subject of their transport over state lines.



failures art wrote:
I must object on additional logical grounds.

Ownership of a flamethrower for self defense would be covered in your argument, but the balance of interests of the individual and the state would be thrown off kilter by the private ownership of armaments that can create such great collateral damage. Similarly, the ownership of RPGs or hand grenades would create a problem.


As far as I know, there are no laws that restrict the possession of flamethrowers.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 07:54 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
Your post is ignorant of the facts.


Not really. But feel free to try to show where I am wrong on any facts.



failures art wrote:
The end of the Assault Weapon Ban did have an effect on this issue. Drug lords used its expiration to get these weapons.


Not at all. They were getting these weapons all along, either from modifying American guns, or from buying full auto military versions of the weapons directly.



failures art wrote:
We are arming the drug cartels. Denying this is ignorant.


The drug cartels would be armed just as well with or without us.



failures art wrote:
Saying that they could get the weapon's elsewhere is rationalizing, but cowardly.


No, it is pointing out the fact that ending American freedom would do nothing to disarm drug cartels.



failures art wrote:
We've enabled them. There's no excuse.


No, they were already enabled. It is hard to enable someone who is already able.



failures art wrote:
As for the USA being the only free country and that freedom coming from our right to own assault weapons. (1) We are not the only country that allows for ownership of said weapons so how are we the only free country, (2) plenty of assault weapons in Africa, Central America, and South America, pretty clear absence of many freedoms,


Actually most of those countries do prohibit the general populace from owning such weapons. They may be freely available on the black market, but that doesn't make them legal.



failures art wrote:
and lastly (3) many countries that do not have guns are far more free than us (Japan, England, etc) and safer as well.

A
R
T


No freedom in either of those countries.

I'm not sure about Japan, but the UK has a fairly high violent crime rate.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 08:03 am
@oralloy,
If you want to run in circles, go at it, but I'm not doing laps with you.

Fact: Drug cartels use weapons purchased in the USA.
Fact: Upon the expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban, the drug cartels become more well armed.

So if they could get them without us, why didn't they? Sure, they had guns before, but we've enabled them to be more armed.

Having assault weapons does not equate to having freedom. I'm certain you'll disagree, but we were free before assault weapons existed. You've created a very narrow view of freedom tailored to your desire for unrestrained access to weapons.

A
R
T
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 08:36 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
If you want to run in circles, go at it, but I'm not doing laps with you.

Fact: Drug cartels use weapons purchased in the USA.
Fact: Upon the expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban, the drug cartels become more well armed.


That is incorrect. The drug cartels did not become anymore well-armed with the expiration of the assault weapons ban.



failures art wrote:
So if they could get them without us, why didn't they?


They did.



failures art wrote:
Sure, they had guns before, but we've enabled them to be more armed.


Not on the assault weapons front. The only weapons we've provided them that they wouldn't have anyway are the FN 57 pistols that chew through Kevlar. And those guns would not be counted under any assault weapons legislation.



failures art wrote:
Having assault weapons does not equate to having freedom.


It is one necessary component of freedom however.



failures art wrote:
I'm certain you'll disagree, but we were free before assault weapons existed.


We had the right to have modern weapons back then too.



failures art wrote:
You've created a very narrow view of freedom tailored to your desire for unrestrained access to weapons.

A
R
T


Actually that view of freedom comes from the people who founded western society.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 08:58 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
Yes, I am an engineer. As such, I feel the need to convey that in the end, any weapon is engineered. Engineering is more than the fabrication, it is the specific drafting of a refinement of a tool to a specific purpose. Having said that, it is foolish to say that all guns are engineered to the same objective. I will certainly agree that many firearms are designed for the self-defense of an individual, however to ignore that more advanced weaponry's primary design objective is to attack/assault is ignorant. Certainly, the creators of the AK-47 or M-14 do not market their product as anything but the best option for a military to use to attack. My point here is that engineering acknowledges that a piece of technology is tailored for context. A state/country has a compelling interest in controlling access to armament which is not DESIGNED for self defense.

Mexican drug lords aren't buying guns for defense. They aren't buying these specific weapons because they are good for defense; they select these weapons for the purpose of attack.

A
Ratatat
T


I don't see how cosmetic features like pistol grips make a weapon more suited to attack and less suited to defense.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 09:13 am
@oralloy,
You can deny the facts as long as you like. I don't need to convince you of them. They are true without your acknowledgement. This does not require your consensus. I'm perfectly comfortable siding with the numbers while you advert.

Freedom is has nothing to do with assault weapons. I'll agree to a citizen's right to own a weapon for self defense, and their right to use it. What I won't do, is use the right to self defense as the green light to have ANY weapon. That is idiotic. Assault weapons are not engineered for self defense, they are engineered for attacking people. If you lack the good judgement to understand the difference here, then you're just announcing your irrelevance, proudly.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 09:18 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I don't see how cosmetic features like pistol grips make a weapon more suited to attack and less suited to defense.

You're cherry picking. You choose the most cosmetic of features for examination to suggest that all classifications of assault weapons and simply cosmetic.

Features like selective rate of fire (assault rifles) and flash suppressors are not simply cosmetic and are designed to better suit attack.

Attack
R
T
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 10:31 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
You can deny the facts as long as you like. I don't need to convince you of them. They are true without your acknowledgement. This does not require your consensus. I'm perfectly comfortable siding with the numbers while you advert.


The only things I am denying are outright falsehoods. And falsehoods are not true.

You cannot show any numbers that show that you are right or I am wrong. That is because these supposed numbers do not exist.



failures art wrote:
Freedom is has nothing to do with assault weapons.


Wrong. Free people have the right to have assault weapons.



failures art wrote:
I'll agree to a citizen's right to own a weapon for self defense, and their right to use it. What I won't do, is use the right to self defense as the green light to have ANY weapon. That is idiotic.


Quite a difference between "an assault weapon" and "any weapon".



failures art wrote:
Assault weapons are not engineered for self defense, they are engineered for attacking people.


Having cosmetic features like pistol grips does not make a weapon any less suited for self defense or any more suited for offense.



failures art wrote:
If you lack the good judgement to understand the difference here, then you're just announcing your irrelevance, proudly.

A
R
T


Thinking that "having cosmetic features like pistol grips" makes any difference in a gun's use in either offense or defense, is not a sign of good judgment.



failures art wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I don't see how cosmetic features like pistol grips make a weapon more suited to attack and less suited to defense.


You're cherry picking. You choose the most cosmetic of features for examination to suggest that all classifications of assault weapons and simply cosmetic.


No cherry picking. And far from "suggesting" it, I'll state it outright:

All the features that make a weapon an assault weapon are entirely cosmetic.



failures art wrote:
Features like selective rate of fire (assault rifles)


The weapons in question here are semi-auto-only, at least while they are in the US. Whether they are converted to full-auto in Mexico is another question.

Features like selective fire do not appear in the definition of assault weapon. It is entirely cosmetic.



failures art wrote:
and flash suppressors are not simply cosmetic and are designed to better suit attack.

Attack
R
T


Balderdash. Flash suppressors are cosmetic.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/08/2020 at 07:06:54