Argumentation on Reddit
[011] Written in 1787
Username: Repulsive_Grand4746
​
Interlocutor: Redditor16, Redditor17
​
Subreddit: changemyview
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Preface:
​
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor16:
AR-15s should be highly illegal to own by regular US citizens.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
AR-15s should be highly illegal to own by regular US citizens.
​
The US is built on a constitution. The constitution says the people have the right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed upon.
​
If you want it a different way, there are other places in the world to establish that. If you don't like it, get rid of the US and replace it with what you think is a better country. The constitution sticks with the US, and it is all for AR-15s being owned by the regular citizens.
​
So AR-15s should be legal for US citizens to own.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor17:
The constitution does not say you can have any gun you want. In fact the only opinions the scotus has rendered on the subject say that the 2nd amendment HAS limits and those limits are at the intersection of peoples rights and public safety.
​
Im guessing you didn’t know that the 94 assault weapons ban never made it to the Supreme Court because all of the lower courts determined there was no case there? We’ve literally banned these guns before and it was constitutional.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
Amendment 2:
​
-
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Start banning my arms, and you have infringed.
​
Constitutional is not infringing my right to bear arms. Consider taking the constitution more seriously.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor17:
That’s not how any of this works dude. Our country doesn’t operate off a couple sentences. The constitution is the core document that governs us, but right underneath that are thousands of Supreme Court decisions that clarify the sometimes broad scope of the constitution.
​
In the oft incompetently cited DC v Heller, the scotus determined that the 2nd amendment does not mean that the government cannot regulate guns.
​
-
“Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limit ing any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”
Scotus decisions decide what is and isn’t constitutional. You can’t just solely look at the one document written in 1787 and think you know how things work. That’s laughable.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
The constitution is the core document that governs us
​
The constitution is the core document that liberates us. It says our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
​
Who isn't sticking to the essentials?
​
​
You can’t just solely look at the one document written in 1787 and think...
​
Where did your reverence for the constitution go?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor17:
Dude I just plainly laid it out for you. SCOTUS decisions are constitutional. What is constitutional is a lot wider than that single document from 1787. You are putting your ignorance on full display here. It's embarrassing.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
Right to bear arms shall not be infringed is a precise clear message. Any infringement of our right to bear arms is unconstitutional according to the Constitution.
​
You reducing the constitution to "a single document from 1787" puts your lack of reverence for it on display. You said the Constitution is the core document that governs us. What happened to that? So perhaps what you should have said, is:
​
-
"What is constitutional is a lot wider than the core document that governs us."
And,
​
-
"You can't just solely look at the core document that governs us and think you know how things work."
Now your message looks silly.
​
Yes we can and we should. I can look at the core document that liberates me and know I am liberated. The Constitution is not the only thing that is constitutional, but what is constitutional must be in line with the Constitution. SCOTUS needs to be in alignment with the core document that liberates us.
​
When SCOTUS can contradict the Constitutional Second Amendment and get away with it, the Constitution becomes meaningless in power.
​
The difference between you and I, is you are appealing to contradiction. I am appealing to the Constitution.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor17 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Previous: [010] Affirming The Matrix
Next: [012] Delusional Troll #1
​
Enter: Additional Writings