Tell me where in that definition, or any, it mentions that any limitation is an infringement, then we'll talk.
You are kidding me, right? Oh wait, you only took the first two definitions. Haha, "your bad." From the same website:
in·fringe (ĭn-frĭnj') Pronunciation Key
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v. tr.
To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
You cheeky lout, you. An infringement would be a limitation or transgression on the right to bear arms.
Um, what the hell? Guns are in and of themselves dangerous too, and nuclear weapons are a quintessential example of "defending oneself." The dispute with Russia that recently came up is over "mutually assured destruction." It's the nuclear equivalent of self-defense. You don't nuke countries because they can nuke you back before it gets to them. Not having nukes (Or someone coming up with a viable defense against them, as the recent example demonstrates) destroys this balance, being that your country is no longer a nuclear threat, and therefore can be nuked without nearly the same backlash. It's not a strawman, it's an allusion to situations that have come up on a larger scale. Private ownership of a nuke could be argued to be one's defense against threats of government intervention. That doesn't mean that we should allow people to have them.
Again? You must be either kidding or slandering (or libel, as is the case).
Firstly, a gun is not inherently dangerous. It can and will sit on a shelf for an eternity without causing harm. One could take it apart, break it or put one together with out the fear of harming oneself. At the end of the day all a gun is are pieces of metal fit into each other to create a mechanical device. Nuclear weapons contain fissile material that can very easily make you dead just from contact.
You must be some lout to defend that a gun is somehow "inherently dangerous."
Second, I would like you to demonstrate how an individual would defend oneself against a nuclear assault. Although the concept of MAD works on a global scale, I can see very little reason for a common citizen to be allowed to own nukes. It seems more of an explanation of why nuclear disarmament is good on the large scale.
These would be the limitations of the definition of arms as it would concern the second amendment.
Alright, tell me when you're ready to start the civilian uprising against the government. We're not talking about an oppressive regime being overthrown, we're talking about violent crime between civilians, and this would lower significantly with an economic deterrant.
The point of having a right to bear arms is to forever forestall the need to ever rise against our government on the premise that we could if required to. That is what Jefferson wrote in many of his letters and speeches, that the second amendment was not just for the defense of the individual against marauder or to hunt for food (which is another reason why an ultra high bullet tax would be heinous) but to give the government pause to perpetually think better of enslaving the populous. Jefferson, as could be told of his writing, thought that the government would only work for mankind as long as mankind held the Sword of Damocles above its head.
One's profession does not invalidate one's opinion. To even suggest that this is the case is the most arrogant thing I've heard yet in this debate.
You do not deny that he is a
comedian who makes
jokes and
hyperbole in order to
entertain an audience. Unless his occupation makes him some type of expert on the subject, I don't see how one's proffesion would validate his opinion.
I would doubt that the majority of people who own firearms for self-defense engage in constant practice, and those who do could easily be accounted for by regulated ranges that provide dummy ammunition, usable in practice, but not for lethal force. And since you flaunt your superior expertise in the matter, give me an average bullet's shelf life (I'd guess at least a month), and then explain to me why a tax would not allow people to replace their ammunition on as regular a basis as it becomes unusable, and then how it would hurt to tax bullets, considering that economically motivated violence (robbery, etc.) could obviously be deterred by this sort of policy.
As above, case in point. You should, in general, fire your ammunition in use within a year. Circumstances will of course change the lifespan (such as ambient moisture, heat, etc.). However, as I've pointed out already, without the use of ammunition to practice ones trade atrophy of the skill sets in. But since you haven't set how much a tax should be, say one million dollars per bullet, then how am I to defend whether it would truly stop people from its use. However much a tax is, I still contend that it would be too much and that it is illegal to prevent one class of people from defending themselves because they are poor but allow the rich to do so. In the end, if a bullet tax was truly outrageous as you submitted by your Chris Rock simile, I would expect the home re-loading market to boom exponentially. Unless you intend to heavily tax chemistry and metallurgy as well?
Protip: Ad Hominem does not pass for logic.
Oh, you misunderstand me completely. I am not attacking you personally as a logical statement for my viewpoint. I consider you a complete idiot when it comes to weaponry because you have shown no familiarity, comprehension nor understanding of weapons, weapons use and self defense in general. I will not begrudge that you may be a subject matter expert in something else entirely, but it is quite obvious that firearms is not one of them.
certainly nothing like sugar collapsing in Cuba, and they even recovered from that. But that's beside the point.