Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mutineer" data-source="post: 3271693" data-attributes="member: 69587">It&#039;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&#039;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 &#039;regulated&#039; militia... Lotsa&#039; people STILL argue over this one. And I don&#039;t blame them. In the English language of that time, &#039;regulated&#039;, 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&#039;s usage, regarding firearms, the words &#039;sighted in&#039; or &#039;zeroed&#039; would be used in place of &#039;regulated&#039;. Don&#039;t think that the meanings of words in the English language change much over time?Once upon a time, &#039;Gay&#039; actually used to only mean &#039;happy&#039;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mutineer, post: 3271693, member: 69587"] 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'. [/QUOTE]

Verification