guns

roadrunner2012

Four hours in the mod queue for a news link
Troll
I saw this comment on a left wing site.

The point is there is a social cost to allowing recreational gun ownership, and gun owners need to acknowledge we are all paying a certain price for their entertainment. For those of us who never have and never will own a gun, it is most definitely not worth it.

That's the thing, it's just not worth it anymore.
 

roadrunner2012

Four hours in the mod queue for a news link
Troll
Baba, RE: Kehoe post.

Are you confirming that most mass murderers in the USA are WHITE people? Just curious what the post meant without so much as a comment.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
I saw this comment on a left wing site.

The point is there is a social cost to allowing recreational gun ownership, and gun owners need to acknowledge we are all paying a certain price for their entertainment. For those of us who never have and never will own a gun, it is most definitely not worth it.

That's the thing, it's just not worth it anymore.

The 2nd Amendment wasnt about "recreational" gun ownership any more than the 1st Amendment was about "recreational" speaking.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
I wonder if our Founding Fathers could have concieved of automatic weapons?

I doubt it, since they burned wood, candles, and had flintlock weapons.

The Founding Fathers couldnt have conceived of radio, TV or the Internet either. That hasnt stopped the First Amendment freedom of speech from being applied to those technologies.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Speaking philosophically...I wouldnt mind seeing some sort of mandatory firearms safety training and criminal background check as a prerequisite for legal ownership. In return for this requirement, I would want to see a uniform set of laws (including the right to concealed carry) that applied equally in all 50 states.

The problem with such a requirement....is that most of the politicians who talk about mandatory "licensing" and "training" are (a) totally ignorant of guns and (b) actually have as their ultimate goal the virtual abolition of private firearm ownership and the right to armed self defense.

Imagine going to the DMV to get a drivers license, only to discover that the tests were designed to make it virtually impossible to ever obtain that license. Imagine if the employees of the DMV were all adamantly opposed to the idea of driving cars. Imagine if the fees associated with such a license were unaffordable, and imagine if the rules for keeping one's license were subject to change at the whims of the unelected bureacrats who were in charge. THAT is the reason why most gun owners (myself included) are opposed to mandatory licensing and training as a practical matter.

If there is ever to be mandatory licensing or training as a prerequisite for gun ownership...it would need to have as a backdrop the fact that gun ownership and armed self-defense is still a fundamental constitutional right and not a "privelege" to be granted or denied at the governments whim. And I would want the entity in charge of such licensing and testing to be both accountable to the people and knowledgable about guns and gun safety. Perhaps placing the NRA in charge of such an organization would be the place to start. While most people view the NRA as a lobbying organization, the fact of the matter is that it was founded as an educational and training organization dedicated to the safe and competent use of firearms.

With all that being said, the sad fact is that there really arent any laws I can think of that will prevent a determined mass murderer from committing a massacre...especially when that murderer is given a monopoly of force over his victims in a so-called "gun free zone".
Again, I agree.
In fact, I alluded to it earlier and it is tiring when those on the right jump to the same old conlusion that this is all about gun control. It isn't. It's a different mindset toward guns altogether. I mentioned that service in the IDF in Israel is mandatory. Why not mandatory military service in the U.S.? Even those who object to being armed can have a significant amount of training as to firearm safety and handling. It even gets to the deeper root of the American psyche with an emphasis on service. Put an entire generation through that kind of training so that self-defense does not begin and end at the barrel of a gun. Give people that kind of confidence and knowledge and I wouldn't care if 98% of America carried concealed weapons.
 

roadrunner2012

Four hours in the mod queue for a news link
Troll
The 2nd Amendment wasnt about "recreational" gun ownership any more than the 1st Amendment was about "recreational" speaking.

I can't seem to find the phrase 'well regulated' in the 1st Amendment. Can you help me out with that?

What are the guns for, home defense? Fine, you can have a pistol and 50 bullets a year, just like Israel.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
I can't seem to find the phrase 'well regulated' in the 1st Amendment. Can you help me out with that?.

We both know it isnt in there.

What is in there...is the phrase "the people".

"The people" who have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech are the same "people" who have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

If your argument is that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to members of a well-regulated militia, then why doesn't the second amendment say "the right of militia membersto keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
We both know it isnt in there.

What is in there...is the phrase "the people".

"The people" who have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech are the same "people" who have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

If your argument is that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to members of a well-regulated militia, then why doesn't the second amendment say "the right of militia membersto keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

is it because that would be redundant? Were the "people" and the "militia" one in the same at the time?
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
is it because that would be redundant? Were the "people" and the "militia" one in the same at the time?

The Founding Fathers distrusted large standing armies in their midst, and regarded an armed populace as the final gurantor of a free society.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
The same could be said of guns considering the relative ease to have incredible firepower just by walking into gander mountain.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
The Founding Fathers distrusted large standing armies in their midst, and regarded an armed populace as the final gurantor of a free society.

then in keeping with the mind of th Founding Fathers no weapon should be banned if it is that military industrial complex we will one day be forced to battle.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
And this madness was before tv.
Heck most people didn't have radios , just a couple of newspapers existed.
After a few weeks the world moved on to the next big story.
No around the clock coverage , no massive influx of really dumb reporters , like asking a young child just how many gun shots did you hear ?
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Baba, RE: Kehoe post.

Are you confirming that most mass murderers in the USA are WHITE people? Just curious what the post meant without so much as a comment.

Would you consider Joseph Stalin white ?

The point being was for you to looking into the story & realize that people kill people.
The use of weapons has so little to do with their acts.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
We both know it isnt in there.

What is in there...is the phrase "the people".

"The people" who have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech are the same "people" who have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

If your argument is that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to members of a well-regulated militia, then why doesn't the second amendment say "the right of militia membersto keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

Again , this argument about what the second amendment says. You say it "says" you have the right to bear arms, and actually, it DOESNT.

What does it really say? NOT a SINGLE one of you supporters can POINT out a single "stand alone" sentence with a begining and a period behind it that states "THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS".

What does exist is a sentence with a PREAMBLE, continuous points about that preamble and a rationale.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

There are three (3) commas in this SENTENCE. GUN supporters and the NRA believe these are 4 separate sentences with 4 different meanings.

IF you dont understand the written word or english, you might think the same, but what THIS sentence in the constitution states is that a MILITIA, that is well regulated (by the states) can keep those states secure (by forming militias) and the right of the people in those militias (the right of those people to bear arms) shall not be infringed upon by anyone including the goverment.

What is a preamble?


pre·am·ble
[pree-am-buh l, pree-am-] Show IPA
noun
1.
an introductory statement; preface; introduction. Synonyms: opening, beginning; foreword, prologue, prelude. Antonyms: epilogue, appendix, conclusion, afterword, closing.
2.
the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
3.
a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: His childhood in the slums was a preamble to a life of crime.

If we are to accept that the second amendment contains 4 separate meanings even though its one sentence separated by commas, then what are we to make of this:

the introductory statement of the U.S. constitution, setting forth the general principles of American government and beginning with the words, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. …”

Are "we the people" separate from "in order to form a more perfect union" ?

Yes, the states and the courts have granted people the "right" to own guns, but this is a political right. The founders would have NEVER allowed machine guns or mass shootings to be the outcome of militias.

In addition, what did the founders intend for those militias? Could anyone be a part of a militia? What about minorities? Could they possess guns?

The answer can be found in the MILITIA act of 1792. You want to have the rights as the founders intended, then you must comply with this act.

The Militia Act of 1792

Pay special attention to this section of the militia act...

"I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.""

You want guns and be a part of the militia? GO for it. Grab your musket, be white and between 18 and 45yrs old.

Peace

TOS
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
The Founding Fathers distrusted large standing armies in their midst, and regarded an armed populace as the final gurantor of a free society.

IF this were REMOTELY TRUE, why then in the MILITIA ACT of 1792 would the founders included this into the act????

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
then in keeping with the mind of th Founding Fathers no weapon should be banned if it is that military industrial complex we will one day be forced to battle.
I wouldnt carry it that far,,, but the bill of rights in general was put in to protect individual rights from too much government rule and establishing state rights
 
Top