Why we DO need weapons of war...

[GripItAndRipIt]

Again the irony here is that whether or not you agree with me or anyone else ...
Does not change the fact that the 2nd Amendment is indeed open to interpretation.

In any event....
I am not at all interested in circular conversation or discussions...and in the interest of not clogging up a thread with more of why I disagree with you...and you disagreeing with me....
I will not be replying to you on this subject any longer.
Andy

Suit yourself.

 

[CamoDeafie]

As it already possesses the sum total of all human knowledge, it will be a worthy adversary.

Doesn't it also possess the sum total of all human idiocy and fallacies too?

 

[Certaindeaf]

Doesn't it also possess the sum total of all human idiocy and fallacies too?

Yes and it is being taught by the leftist owners of that tech that we are the problem.

 

[solv3nt]

Please, tell me how the phrase "shall not" is "open to interpretation" as you assert. Thank you.

I just did.... Whether you like it or not, opinions are like donkey holes, everybody's got one.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

One may have to "live" with authoritarian "interpretation" of The 2A....
I for one, will NEVER accept that The 2A is "open" to interpretation by tyrants, unsure Citizens, and scum anti-gunners. Nor will I ever be kind, in word or deed, to those "open to interpretation" of The 2A.

Joe

Agree. "Shall not" is in no way open to any interpretation in any rational sense of the word.

 

[Koda]

Please explain how the phrase "shall not" is "open to interpretation." Thank you.

they way I understand the whole gun control argument is thats not the part of the 2A thats being challenged.

regardless, anyone can reinterpret it, thats a fact or our rights would not be under attack. The 2A exists only as long as its codified on paper.
look at it like this, all it would take is a liberal scotus to say it has to be interpreted by todays standards instead of historical. The only reason scotus ruled they way they did in Bruen is because Trump got elected and appointed conservative justices. half the country disagrees, the whole thing is a matter of interpretation.

 

[solv3nt]

Agree. "Shall not" is in no way open to any interpretation in any rational sense of the word.

Please see bold text and think about that word for a moment, and how/if it applies to most people.

If that doesn't convince you, think of the most average person that you know, then realize that half of America is dumber than that individual.

Now if this thought doesn't scare you or convince your how those that have opinions interpret "shall", I don't know what to tell you...

 

[AtMyself]

Ok, the antis are fond of calling our MSRs "weapons of war" and reminding us that the 2A was never meant for us to possess them. Even the "president," Sniffer-In-Chief Xoe Xiden likes using the phrase to rile up the wokes...

But here, my friends, is the EXACT REASON we ordinary citizens need actual real authentic weapons of war... And I mean bazookas and RPGs, not some damn dressed up varmint rifle...

Being able to own RPG's, C4, etc. is insane. Too many damn crazies out there. Also do you think you could do anything once an advanced AI takes over? When that happens that will be the end of it. No amount of weapons will save humanity.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I just did.... Whether you like it or not, opinions are like donkey holes, everybody's got one.

You did not. You merely asserted "I can do what I want." And I can assert a dog is a cat... does not make it so. That is not a matter of opinion.

So I ask again, please explain how the phrase "shall not" is "open to interpretation" by rational beings capable of discernment in a rational universe. Thank you.

 

[solv3nt]

You did not. You merely asserted "I can do what I want." And I can assert a dog is a cat... does not make it so. That is not a matter of opinion.

Woman of the year.

Transgender lawmaker honored on USA TODAY 'Women of the Year' list

Finke notably pushed to make Minnesota a haven for children seeking gender change procedures, barring out-of-state laws from causing interference.

www.google.com

 

[CamoDeafie]

Being able to own RPG's, C4, etc. is insane. Too many damn crazies out there. Also do you think you could do anything once an advanced AI takes over? When that happens that will be the end of it. No amount of weapons will save humanity.

RPGs and C4 would be excellent tools to use against drones and armored drones/armored servers. AI has one big weakness. It can't be sustained without a way to generate electricity.

Edit. Also, could reduce the number of crazies by a big amount letting them kill themselves.

 

[solv3nt]

You did not. You merely asserted "I can do what I want." And I can assert a dog is a cat... does not make it so. That is not a matter of opinion.

So I ask again, please explain how the phrase "shall not" is "open to interpretation" by rational beings capable of discernment in a rational universe. Thank you.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Transgender lawmaker honored on USA TODAY 'Women of the Year' list

Finke notably pushed to make Minnesota a haven for children seeking gender change procedures, barring out-of-state laws from causing interference.

www.google.com

You just made my argument.

 

[solv3nt]

You just made my argument.

A woman has been redefined. You think "shall" is immune?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Being able to own RPG's, C4, etc. is insane. Too many damn crazies out there. Also do you think you could do anything once an advanced AI takes over? When that happens that will be the end of it. No amount of weapons will save humanity.

I can make the same argument about SUVs, but you seem to have missed the point of my OP.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

A woman has been redefined. You think "shall" is immune?

Only by irrational people. A woman is still a human female born with a vagina, and who will eventually grow to sexual maturity thus being the only kind of human capable of bearing offspring. A dude in a women's swimsuit is not a woman... in the rational universe.

 

[solv3nt]

Only by irrational people. A woman is still a human female born with a vagina, and who will eventually grow to sexual maturity thus being the only kind of human capable of bearing offspring. A dude in a women's swimsuit is not a woman... in the rational universe.

Your assumption is that people are rational. Most notably, you are assuming that the gun grabbers are rational.

Again, think of the most average person, now, with a straight face, tell me that they are rational.

 

[Xaevian]

You did not. You merely asserted "I can do what I want." And I can assert a dog is a cat... does not make it so. That is not a matter of opinion.

So I ask again, please explain how the phrase "shall not" is "open to interpretation" by rational beings capable of discernment in a rational universe. Thank you.

Firstly, "shall not" is only a fraction of the whole amendment. Secondly, if it was so clear, this argument wouldn't exist. Thirdly, confirmation bias.

You are proving the point by interpreting the words of others how you want to instead of understanding what they actually mean.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

they way I understand the whole gun control argument is thats not the part of the 2A thats being challenged.

regardless, anyone can reinterpret it, thats a fact or our rights would not be under attack. The 2A exists only as long as its codified on paper.
look at it like this, all it would take is a liberal scotus to say it has to be interpreted by todays standards instead of historical. The only reason scotus ruled they way they did in Bruen is because Trump got elected and appointed conservative justices. half the country disagrees, the whole thing is a matter of interpretation.

While I don't disagree with what you wrote, that wasn't the question.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I wonder if we could "logic-bomb" AI into acting irrationally... edit I think I read somewhere that someone was able to get an AI chatbot to display mental illness of some sort?