crickets...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, see, you keep saying again and again that I am in error. That doesn't make it so. Some of the founding fathers were fine with banning guns on campus. I therefore conclude that they never intended the second amendment be absolute. Along the same lines, I have freedom of speech, but I cannot threaten someone or yell "fire", which is (I think) further evidence that limitations on the bill of rights, are not necessarily unconstitutional. I think I make a compelling case. Telling me to shut up, isn't refuting what I am saying. That's what liberals do when they have no cards to play.

When the big and emotional assault on Second Amendment rights is being argued on the basis of federal power, is demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion.

Otherwise, if you keep plying some unspecified, general limitations on those rights, it gives fuel to the fire of calls for some unspecified power of the federal government to regulate Bill of Rights freedoms. And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. Does that sound reasonable to you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When the big and emotional assault on Second Amendment rights is being argued on the basis of federal power, is demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion.

Otherwise, if you keep plying some unspecified, general limitations on those rights, it gives fuel to the fire of calls for some unspecified power of the federal government to regulate Bill of Rights freedoms. And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. Does that sound reasonable to you?

"demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion."

Agreed. I get careless and say the feds should do this or that, I mean the states...

"And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. "

Yes, that is the road to tyranny.

"Does that sound reasonable to you?"

No, it doesn't. Just because the road exists for the government to become tyrannical, doesn't mean they will. I do not think it's reasonable to assume that my liberties have been trampled upon, if we do away with bump stocks and high capacity magazines. If the feds want to send in Seal Team 6 to kill me and steal my stuff, bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't going to stop them. They can launch a missile through my bedroom window anytime they feel like it, a bump stock does absolutely nothing to protect me against that. But it makes it easier for me to kill a huge number of innocent people.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion."

Agreed. I get careless and say the feds should do this or that, I mean the states...

"And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. "

Yes, that is the road to tyranny.

"Does that sound reasonable to you?"

No, it doesn't. Just because the road exists for the government to become tyrannical, doesn't mean they will. I do not think it's reasonable to assume that my liberties have been trampled upon, if we do away with bump stocks and high capacity magazines. If the feds want to send in Seal Team 6 to kill me and steal my stuff, bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't going to stop them. They can launch a missile through my bedroom window anytime they feel like it, a bump stock does absolutely nothing to protect me against that. But it makes it easier for me to kill a huge number of innocent people.

If you agreed to my reasoning of what led to the road to tyranny, and then said it was unreasonable because if the government takes that road there is nothing you can do to stop it, then I don't know what reasonable means to you.

Unless . . . oh . . . unless, since reasonableness can't stop the fed from killing you, reasonableness can give the fed power to stop you from killing others. Yeah, I see a sort of symmetry there. Yeah, tyranny is the only reasonable way to stop killings, except of course, it can't stop government from doing so.

I kind of think that's what I sort of said or implied by references to Brave New World and world wide bans on production of guns which are portrayed as nonsense suggestions.