guns

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
I will happily agree with liberals on a few political subjects. Just not gun control. Not one, eensy-teensy bit.
Ok lol.

I don't agree with liberals on gun control or with conservatives on their war on unions. I guess you have to make a choice whether you care more about your job or your gun hobby.

Union dues don't have anything to do with guns though, so glad I could clear that Republican lie up for you.
 

Sportello

Well-Known Member
I will happily agree with liberals on a few political subjects. Just not gun control. Not one, eensy-teensy bit.

Absolutely no control on who owns a gun? None whatsoever, apart from a loose, possibly flawed, definition of the 2nd Amendment?

I'm just curious on what limits, if any, should be placed on firearm ownership.
 

rod

Retired 22 years
Remember a place called Vietnam? The mightiest, best equipped military on earth (United States) was ultimately repelled in no small part by a bunch of armed, illiterate rice farmers wearing pajamas!

Thanks to the politicians who wouldn't let the generals fight using winning war tactics.
 

Mutineer

Well-Known Member
whether you care more about your job or your gun hobby.
It's not just a hobby. It is the basis, the teeth of an ideal that all men are created equal. It is based on the notion that all forms of government are corruptible and are capable of atrocities and abuses against it's own citizens. The first two amendments of our constitution are our most important tools to discourage and repel that sad, stupid eventuality.
Absolutely no control on who owns a gun? None whatsoever, apart from a loose, possibly flawed, definition of the 2nd Amendment?

I'm just curious on what limits, if any, should be placed on firearm ownership.

Off the top of my head, without double-checking, I would think we had all the gun control we needed by 1968. I believe by then this included barring convicted felons, the mentally ill, dishonorably discharged service members, and drug addicts. Anything introduced after the Gun Control Act of 1968 is probably redundant, poorly intended, and arguably unconstitutional.

Which leads us to that pesky, misunderstood, much argued over word in the 2nd amendment:

...a well 'regulated' militia... Lotsa' people STILL argue over this one. And I don't blame them.

In the English language of that time, 'regulated', when used in the context of describing a musket, rifle, or cannon, meant that the weapon in question was adjusted and capable of hitting what it was aimed at within the expectations of the weapon in question. It is my understanding that this definition has been agreed upon by the vast majority of constitutional scholars.

In today's usage, regarding firearms, the words 'sighted in' or 'zeroed' would be used in place of 'regulated'.

Don't think that the meanings of words in the English language change much over time?
Once upon a time, 'Gay' actually used to only mean 'happy'.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
It's not just a hobby. It is the basis, the teeth of an ideal that all men are created equal. It is based on the notion that all forms of government are corruptible and are capable of atrocities and abuses against it's own citizens. The first two amendments of our constitution are our most important tools to discourage and repel that sad, stupid eventuality.


Off the top of my head, without double-checking, I would think we had all the gun control we needed by 1968. I believe by then this included barring convicted felons, the mentally ill, dishonorably discharged service members, and drug addicts. Anything introduced after the Gun Control Act of 1968 is probably redundant, poorly intended, and arguably unconstitutional.

Which leads us to that pesky, misunderstood, much argued over word in the 2nd amendment:

...a well 'regulated' militia... Lotsa' people STILL argue over this one. And I don't blame them.

In the English language of that time, 'regulated', when used in the context of describing a musket, rifle, or cannon, meant that the weapon in question was adjusted and capable of hitting what it was aimed at within the expectations of the weapon in question. It is my understanding that this definition has been agreed upon by the vast majority of constitutional scholars.

In today's usage, regarding firearms, the words 'sighted in' or 'zeroed' would be used in place of 'regulated'.

Don't think that the meanings of words in the English language change much over time?
Once upon a time, 'Gay' actually used to only mean 'happy'.
Yawn.
It's a hobby bro.

And your whole argument is based on constitutional law which is interpreted and decided by the judicial branch, not the the legislative one. So frankly, voting on the basis of guns rights is laughable. It's a polarizing topic that's good for nothing but rhetoric and scaring up votes.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
SUP
red man.jpg
Thanks for the X.
 

Sportello

Well-Known Member
In the English language of that time, 'regulated', when used in the context of describing a musket, rifle, or cannon, meant that the weapon in question was adjusted and capable of hitting what it was aimed at within the expectations of the weapon in question. It is my understanding that this definition has been agreed upon by the vast majority of constitutional scholars.

In today's usage, regarding firearms, the words 'sighted in' or 'zeroed' would be used in place of 'regulated'.

What would 'regulated' mean in the context of modifying the word 'militia'?
 

TearsInRain

IE boogeyman
Thanks to the politicians who wouldn't let the generals fight using winning war tactics.
ultimately the vietnamese would have lost due to their corrupt and ineffective leadership

all the COIN and US political support means jack :censored2: if the host country's political establishment has zero interest in actually defeating the enemy
 

rod

Retired 22 years
ultimately the vietnamese would have lost due to their corrupt and ineffective leadership

all the COIN and US political support means jack :censored2: if the host country's political establishment has zero interest in actually defeating the enemy
So your solution is to have the US stay out of other countries problems? Good luck with that. What fantasy world do you live in?
 

El Correcto

god is dead
The founders could not have imagined the internet. All they had were cranky, hand operated printing presses.

Care to apply that logic to the first amendment?

Also, keep in mind that if you are a member of a labor union, your dues are being used to elect politicians who would cheerfully repeal the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting deer or a reserve military. It's all to do with disposing of a corrupt government and reinstating a new one.

Another fallacious argument is that armed citizens couldn't possibly repel an army of trained, professional soldiers with tanks, planes, and missiles. Therefore, it's pointless for citizens to have guns at all.

Remember a place called Vietnam? The mightiest, best equipped military on earth (United States) was ultimately repelled in no small part by a bunch of armed, illiterate rice farmers wearing pajamas!
Okay Jolly Roger, I’m sure you’ll be able to dispose of the federal government or red dawn an invading force with your AR-15 and extended clip pistols. If your going to be pro second amendment for that reason, why not just make all weapons legal for all non felons. Your revolution is at a stark disadvantage without nukes or attack drones.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
Okay Jolly Roger, I’m sure you’ll be able to dispose of the federal government or red dawn an invading force with your AR-15 and extended clip pistols. If your going to be pro second amendment for that reason, why not just make all weapons legal for all non felons. Your revolution is at a stark disadvantage without nukes or attack drones.
Neither of your last two posts are compelling, you'd do well to rethink your argument, or scrap it altogether.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
Neither of your last two posts are compelling, you'd do well to rethink your argument, or scrap it altogether.
I don’t see how, if someone says the second amendment is for revolting against a corrupt government or defending the home front from foreigners mockery seems appropriate.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
I don’t see how, if someone says the second amendment is for revolting against a corrupt government or defending the home front from foreigners mockery seems appropriate.
And once again you have displayed your small mindedness and failure to see a complete picture. Attempt to use your mind and discard your political biases. That mockery seemed appropriate also.

How is revolting against the government even remotely conveyed?
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.
We can use training wheels, you may actually learn something.
 
Top