Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PM_ME_MURPHY_HATE t1_irvqfcd wrote

Reply to comment by mcs0301 in The Vulnerability of John Fetterman - Inside this year’s highest-stakes Senate race. by -TheFarce-

> Please, do tell, what rights have been taken from you?

Fetterman and just about every Democrat has said they support an "Assault Weapon Ban" which in practice means banning any semi-automatic rifle. That's an actual enumerated right in the US Constitution. Not a made up one like being able to kill an unborn child in the womb. And he wants to take it away.

−6

mcs0301 t1_irvr4t3 wrote

Interesting take. So, your're saying the Founding Fathers made owning assault weapons a right back when there weren't any assault weapons to have a right to own?

There is absolutely no right, enumerated or not, that gives anyone a right to own assault weapons.

You 2nd amendment worshipers always take it much further than the amendment actually called for.

13

BadRabiesJudger t1_irvv1bp wrote

I’m all for open carry muskets. You get one shot every two minutes.

6

PM_ME_MURPHY_HATE t1_irw552p wrote

You should give up your right to free speech online as well. Maybe stick to a quill and parchment.

0

BadRabiesJudger t1_irxwzen wrote

The only equivalent to that is probably twitter and I’d be cool if that toxic armpit went away.

1

PM_ME_MURPHY_HATE t1_irw4oah wrote

> Interesting take. So, your're saying the Founding Fathers made owning assault weapons a right back when there weren't any assault weapons to have a right to own?

Interesting take. Since computers were not invented then your right to free speech would never extend into anything digital right?

> There is absolutely no right, enumerated or not, that gives anyone a right to own assault weapons.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Have fun defining "assault weapon" too. It's a made up term with no actual definition except, "Scary looking gun that makes people with no knowledge of firearms uneasy".

> You 2nd amendment worshipers always take it much further than the amendment actually called for.

Those that give up freedom for what they think is security will end up with neither.

0

mcs0301 t1_irw6jxd wrote

Well, from past experience and recent conversations it's obvious I will not change your mind, and you won't be changing mine. I could continue to copy pasta your rebuttals and give what I would argue are comparable replies. In the end, we'll never see eye to eye. Not sure if you'd be surprised or not to find out that I too own several guns. So I'm not anti 2nd amendment, just view it differently.

The only 2 things I'll say is that 1- I just don't live in fear like you do. And 2- I would love if people put as much effort and passion into helping your fellow man as you do worshiping guns. The world would be a better place.

Take care though. Unlike the guy who was afraid to converse with me, you took the time and explained your argument. I can respect that.

6

PM_ME_MURPHY_HATE t1_irw74r8 wrote

> Well, from past experience and recent conversations it's obvious I will not change your mind, and you won't be changing mine. I could continue to copy pasta your rebuttals and give what I would argue are comparable replies. In the end, we'll never see eye to eye. Not sure if you'd be surprised or not to find out that I too own several guns. So I'm not anti 2nd amendment, just view it differently. > > The only 2 things I'll say is that 1- I just don't live in fear like you do.

The only fear I have is of a foolish super majority selling out their own rights.

> And 2- I would love if people put as much effort and passion into helping your fellow man as you do worshiping guns.

Claiming someone is worshiping a tool simply because they verbally defend their rights to keep them is insulting. That's just as stupid as claiming someone who argues for being pro choice worshiping baby killing.

> The world would be a better place.

That's highly debatable as the only people who would be disarmed are the law abiding.

> Take care though. Unlike the guy who was afraid to converse with me, you took the time and explained your argument. I can respect that.

Cheers and have a great day!

0

HahaWeee t1_irvrfmx wrote

Where is the right to have semi automatic rifles?

Specifically the 2a doesn't specify which arms one could reasonably argue there can be restrictions. Unless you're the national guard but I know you guys like to ignore the whole milita bit

8

PM_ME_MURPHY_HATE t1_irw4cj1 wrote

> Where is the right to have semi automatic rifles? Specifically the 2a doesn't specify which arms one could reasonably argue there can be restrictions.

The part that says: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A law saying you cannot have a semi-auto would clearly be infringing on that right.

> Unless you're the national guard but I know you guys like to ignore the whole milita bit

The line referencing the militia does not say that you must be a member of a militia. It's an example of one reason why the right has been enumerated.

It'd be like a line saying, "*A well educated populace being necessary to the industrial base, the rights of the people to attend public school..." being just one example of why education should be provided to children. It doesn't mean that working in a factory would be the only reason you would have a right to an education.

−2