Hawaii becomes first U.S. state to place gun owners on FBI database - Polidicks

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602436]where exactly does it say that they assume every gun owner is a criminal?[/QUOTE] What is "criminal database" for 200$

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602436]where exactly does it say that they assume every gun owner is a criminal?[/QUOTE] By putting them into a FEDERAL CRIMINAL RECORDS DATABASE That's where

[QUOTE=wystan;50602440]This is not a false equivalence, these are both rights guaranteed by the constitution, mind you, LITERALLY THE FIRST TWO RIGHTS GIVEN.[/QUOTE] it's like you've ignored every other post in the thread to come in and offer me a trump card. It IS a false equivalence and it IS a fallacy. Why, you may ask? because the act of speaking is different than the act of shooting, and both are fundamentally different from each other. secondly, it's fallacious, because you're assuming that they knew that semi-autos and machineguns would eventually come out 100 years later based on a prototype and an air rifle.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602416]you can still turn an semi-auto ar-15 into a fully auto just by changing your stock.[/QUOTE] What the fuck is this bogus shenanigans.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602445]No, I'm done here because I'm not going to run around in circles with a high school intro to debate dropout who would struggle to pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the fucking heel[/QUOTE] someone is salty as hell. You're literally leaving the debate like a high-school dropout because you can't and haven't proven me wrong at all.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602436]where exactly does it say that they assume every gun owner is a criminal?[/QUOTE] By putting citizens on a database?

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50602461]What the fuck is this bogus shenanigans.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;_U6tORrODJE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE[/video]

[QUOTE=OvB;50602466]By putting citizens on a database?[/QUOTE] a database is a database. there's a database of DMV registered cars, is that assuming that everyone who owns a car is a criminal?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602469]Again, if speech itself is the thing that's guaranteed, then so is the right to bear arms (any arm by that matter). If any other case is true then your argument is moot.[/QUOTE] Arms* you mean. because Arms at the time were muzzle loading and flintlock pistols. does the right to bear arms extend to cannons and tanks?

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602455]it's like you've ignored every other post in the thread to come in and offer me a trump card. It IS a false equivalence and it IS a fallacy. Why, you may ask? because the act of speaking is different than the act of shooting, and both are fundamentally different from each other. secondly, it's fallacious, because you're assuming that they knew that semi-autos and machineguns would eventually come out 100 years later based on a prototype and an air rifle.[/QUOTE] Well if you want to play the fallacy game, I play the Fallacy-Fallacy face up in attack position. I'm not assuming they knew specifically about semi-autos, I'm saying they left the rights guaranteed very encompassing for the sole reason to allow for technological advancement. The Act of Speaking and the Act of Shooting are both incredibly important for the free citizen.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602473]You mean the thing you have to develop a special technique to use? The thing that turns your ar into an unreliable inaccurate POS?[/QUOTE] look at who the reply is for.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602416]you can still turn an semi-auto ar-15 into a fully auto just by changing your stock.[/QUOTE] You're referring to putting a bump fire stock on an AR-15, right? Because a normal civi AR-15 can't be made full auto unless you change the bolt carrier system and add in a few more internal parts. -EDIT- Just saw that you posted the vid. Anyway, yeah. Bump-Firing stocks make it 'full auto' but turn the weapon into a 'spray and pray' weapon. They're also technically legal in most states, I believe.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602471]a database is a database. there's a database of DMV registered cars, is that assuming that everyone who owns a car is a criminal?[/QUOTE] Federal. [b][i][u]CRIMINAL[/u][/i][/b]. Records. Database.

It says the right to form a militia and bear arms, not the right to own muskets and flintlock rifles. The language already assumes a technical advance by using the word arms. It assumes if a government can use a rifle so should it's people. Whether or not that rifle can shoot one round or a dozen is irrelevant to the language of the amendment. Assuming they only ment it to be single shot muskets while the rest of the country advanced around them is just stupid.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602483]Actually yes. According to ATF rules and regulations you can own cannons, tanks, grenade launchers, RPG's, etc; they're what's called "class 3 weapons"[/QUOTE] And in fact during the period of the Revolution there were Civilian owned Artillery companies. Though on a related note, I know a reenactment group that's building their own FT-17, drive axels broke but other than that its pretty much in working order

[QUOTE=bdd458;50602481]Federal. [b][i][u]CRIMINAL[/u][/i][/b]. Records. Database.[/QUOTE] I still don't see anything wrong with this. they have not been unjustly prosecuted or punished for their ownership of a firearm.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602471]a database is a database. there's a database of DMV registered cars, is that assuming that everyone who owns a car is a criminal?[/QUOTE] Owning a car is not a right expressed in the bill of rights.

[QUOTE=OvB;50602494]Owning a car is not a right expressed in the bill of rights.[/QUOTE] that's dodging the question. a database is a database, nothing more.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602497]that's dodging the question. a database is a database, nothing more.[/QUOTE] So is the no-fly list yet I see lots of opposition to that. I wonder why, probably the whole "due process" thing getting in the way.

A criminal database is not "just a database", its where you list people who have actually comitted a crime. The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding

No one should be on a criminal watch list without first being a criminal. No exception.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602476]Arms* you mean. because Arms at the time were muzzle loading and flintlock pistols. does the right to bear arms extend to cannons and tanks?[/QUOTE] Does the right to free speech apply to the internet, the radio and television? Those were all inventions that happened after the constitution was written.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602509]So are you going to address the fact that you can legally obtain any number of "destructive devices", and that the right to bear arms is indeed the right to bear arms, and has no bearing on what mechanism of action they use? Or are we done here?[/QUOTE] Actually yeah, because it's not in the constitution it is up to the supreme court to decide what is and isn't a Arms* and since they are the ones deciding the interpretation of the constitution, my original statement is still true, you don't know what the founding fathers intended to do with the second amendment. Besides that, as the supreme court is a political machine i can say the "arms" that are legal are a result of bickering within the court for 40-50 years deciding what an arms* represents, and as thus is subject to political dissertation. So again, you do not know if the founding fathers intended a tank with a .50 browning machinegun and a 120mm barrel with depleted uranium armor to be considered an arm. it was the supreme court that did. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;50602510]No one should be on a criminal watch list without first being a criminal. No exception.[/QUOTE] The NSA have a list like that but nobody seems to care. So does the TSA.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602527]The NSA have a list like that but nobody seems to care. So does the TSA.[/QUOTE] Doesn't make it right or justify this in the slightest.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602489]I still don't see anything wrong with this. they have not been unjustly prosecuted or punished for their ownership of a firearm.[/QUOTE] Normal, everyday citizens being placed on a list reserved for murderers, thieves, and the like simply because they own a firearm? Citizens that have never committed a crime? I'd call that punishment.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602543]The supreme court has already ruled and set precidence as to the definition of "arms" (I recommend the miller case, good read) to rule any other way would go against 70+ years of presidence. The court simply wouldn't do it.[/QUOTE] So again, you do not know if the founding fathers intended a tank with a .50 browning machinegun and a 120mm barrel with depleted uranium armor to be considered an arm. it was the supreme court that did.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602543]The supreme court has already ruled and set precidence as to the definition of "arms" (I recommend the miller case, good read) to rule any other way would go against 70+ years of presidence. The court simply wouldn't do it. And since the 2nd protects the actual right to bear arms, it would be unconstitutional to ban a weapon based on it's mechanisms of action, or appearance.[/QUOTE] and if you believe that Arms is defined by the supreme court as everything the class system entails you wouldn't be opposed if a democratically led Supreme court dismissed that and set the precedence to be only muskets and flintlocks, correct?

Being a gun owner doesn't make you some blood thirsty criminal and it shouldn't mean you get treated like one either

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602553]So again, you do not know if the founding fathers intended a tank with a .50 browning machinegun and a 120mm barrel with depleted uranium armor to be considered an arm. it was the supreme court that did.[/QUOTE] The founding fathers could not have dreamed of the internet, television or the radio, and yet the right to free speech applies to them as well as it applies to face-to-face discussion.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602563]and if you believe that Arms is defined by the supreme court as everything the class system entails you wouldn't be opposed if a democratically led Supreme court dismissed that and set the precedence to be only muskets and flintlocks, correct?[/QUOTE] Rather too late when the precedence for it otherwise has already been established.