Do you support the second amendment?


If you want to have discussions about tanks, nuks, etc., start a thread on it.

But I am not going to sit there and take a proverbial “called strike” by the umpire, when you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

When you are baiting and switching your arguments.

When you are moving goal posts.

Not gonna fall for it.


It doesn’t matter if you’re willing to admit it or not; your right to bear arms is limited. There are plenty of “arms” out there that you absolutely cannot legally own.

The question we’re continually answering is “what side of the line should semi-autos fall?”


I can see some of what you say as valid, but nowhere, NOWHERE, did I proclaim judgement on those who feel the need to own firearms for protection. To classify me as “horrible” seems a stretch, but go ahead if you need to.


we agree on something.




I do not want to go into your homes and get them (your fire arms).

Why not?

HOW do you plan on getting them?

How do you think you are going to make firearms “less available” to those who already have them?

WHY focus your “argument” against the citizen who is law-abiding?

Does the Constitution affirm nuclear arms for Governments too?

Why ignore this but go after the fire arms of the citizenry? Especially when you are ignoring our Constitutional protections?

Why should people think the Government is going to do what Vonsalza wants them to do? Especially when Governments so frequently have over-stepped their bounds already (the Court records are packed with such examples)?

When Japanese Americans were gathered up and their belongings stolen from them, was it OK because now they could not commit gun crime from their internment camps?

When the Indians were disarmed was that reasonable?

Oh. I get it. It can’t happen again right? And it can’t happen because Vonsalza gives everybody reassurances.

Reassurances that are meaningless if the Constitution is not going to be followed anyway.

Which is exactly what you are attempting to do–ignore our Constitutional protections for good, hard-working, law-abiding citizens while imposing your ideas of “Collective Guilt” on THEM.


I don’t think it was your argument to go into homes and get guns , though that is clearly what Sen. Feinstein proposes.
Your argument is to make it more difficult for poor people and young people to make that initial purchase. In short, restrict the 2nd amendment right of certain classes or groups of law abiding Americans
So, your claim of invalidity is itself invalid


Because I support voluntary buybacks. Over time, a lot of the loose guns will get sucked up; particularly when the next recession hits.

Theoretically, sure. And by “due process of law”, we’ve not limited our government away from them.

This is the glory or a government by and for the people. If they act too badly, you vote the shmucks out. It seems a lot of your arguments are aimed at the monarchy that ended here over 200 years ago…

So now I’m not just a “gun grabber”, I’ll actively arrest you too???
Oh boy…

Again. Government by and for the people. It’s self-correcting and adaptive as a result, which is why it survives.


I actually enjoy validity and soundness tests. Seriously.

Cathoholic was invalid above because his argument requires “they want to make guns less available” and “they’ll come and get your guns” to mean the same thing. They obviously do not, thus we have a fallacy of false equivalence; with very little ambiguity.

So what fallacy did I commit and where? Please be specific because, again, I enjoy this stuff.


To your claim, we already have a precedent.

To get your conceal and carry (the “bear” part in the “right to bear arms”) in my state, the paperwork, class and ammo all run about $100 or a touch less.

It obviously affects people who would have difficulty meeting the financial requirements. And, again, it’s on the books.


Vonsalza in post 1783 (emphasis mine) . . . .


Cathoholic was invalid above because his argument REQUIRES “they want to make guns less available” and “they’ll come and get your guns” to mean the same thing.


For people who want facts, here is what I REALLY said . . . .
(Cathoholic in post 1780)


I do not want to go into your homes and get them (your fire arms).


Why not?
HOW do you plan on getting them?

Vonsalza’s answer as to HOW Vonsalza will obtain (“grab”) free law-abiding people’s firearms (in post 1782) . . .


Because I support voluntary buybacks . . . .


This is the kind of non-sequiturs we get from people who think like this.

Vonsalza. WHAT if someone doesn’t “voluntarily” “sell” their firearm “back” to the Government (who never owned it in the first place)?


Over time, a lot of the loose guns will get sucked up . . .


They’ve had “voluntary” buy “backs” in Chicago.

How’s THAT working Vonsalza?

(Vonsalza will just reply to Nationalize this. Double-down on yet more failed Government programs.–The usual answer likely)


Vonsalza goes on:


the loose guns will get sucked up; particularly when the next recession hits.


There you have it folks.

Not just an attack on good, honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens, but FOCUSED on . . . .
. . . . POOR, good, honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens.

The POOR woman who has an out of control restraining-order-ignoring “ex” is the first to be TARGETED by people like Vonsalza.

And all the worse for her if she has a liitle baby or two that she is ALSO trying to help and defend.

And if she is fighting breast cancer, or has some other health ailment?

Let the “buy backs” begin!

Take advantage of her misery.

THAT is the Vonsalza paradigm here.

As I said before. The first elitist was satan (in my opinion).
“I will NOT SERVE” (those of lower stature than me)!!


You’re forgetting the first part of the amendment - “A well regulated Militia…”

There’s nothing about the current system that is well regulated.



You’re forgetting the first part of the amendment - “A well regulated Militia…”

There’s nothing about the current system that is well regulated.



The well-regulated militia WAS part of the CITIZENRY casslean.

It was “well regulated” by THEM.

Not the Government.

Do you think these guys were working FOR the Government and King George casslean??

Don’t you know this argument has been debunked by the Supreme Court (the Heller decision)?

The “Bill of Rights” are the first Ten Amendments.

The “Bill of Rights” are supposed to the PROTECT the citizenry’s RIGHTS against Government over-reach—not contribute to Government over-reach.

Why do you think all the other Nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights were aimed at protecting citizens but in your mind the Second Amendment was the ONE exception aimed at INCREASING Governments power over free citizens (or if you don’t think that please clarify)?


Actually, you are right. I apologize. Based on the argument I gave, it doesn’t disprove your statement.
My argument is with the attempt to prevent people from exercising their right to firearms because of their economic status or age.


There is a big difference between a fee for a license (like any other), and your goal which is far more nefarious than a simple fee for a CCL. Your stated purpose is to prevent a certain class of people and those who have recently reached adulthood from exercising their 2nd amendment rights, even though they have committed no crime.

You’ve said it: you want to reduce firearms. In one sense, Cathaholic is right. You don’t want to go into homes and collect firearms. You want to prevent citizens from having them in the first place. It is really more about timing than a different end result.


How much of your money do you plan to do this with, because there is no constitutional basis for the general government to do it. It isn’t the job of government to buy back legal consumer products with other people’s money


OK, say it however you want. I still disagree with it. Killers are no more likely to “take advantage” of a schoolyard target because it is a posted gun free zone than if it wasn’t so designated. Are you thinking that killers will shy away from schools that are not posted gun free for fear of CC private citizens who might shoot them? I don’t think that is realistic.


Well regulated is when a person goes to the range and a friend or neighbor teaches them.
Well regulated is when the Boy Scouts teach kids how to shoot and care for a 22.
Well regulated is when someone teaches their spouse or child how to handle a firearm.


I was looking at data on mass shootings in the US. I noticed they started becoming normal in the 1960s and continued to increase. They happened before but they were much rarer it would appear. Are there any theories? Did ‘powerful’ guns get invented around that time or did they exist before?


Exactly, because my right to have that firearm has NOTHING to do with what happened in Texas or Vegas.
Instead it is actually quite selfish and rather anti-life to ask a woman to give up her protective handgun, to insist that the thousands who defend themselves and others with firearms be required to give up that right.


There is a reason why most of these mass shooters pick a soft target that are gun free. They meet no resistance. They know they have 3 - 5 minutes to do what they want to do before they shoot themselves in response to the arrival of law enforcement. It was fortunate that two good guys with guns showed up at that church in Texas.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit