guns

[1BROWNWRENCH]

I want one of these!!

Smallbore Slabsides: Rock Island Armory .22 TCM Review - Shotgun News

Nice, but at $22 a box I don't think I could afford much practice. This caliber looks nearly impossible to reload. I'll just stick to my Glock 22,Ruger GP100 and Makarov.

 

[UPS Lifer]

Odd. I get the same feeling about you.

You have the right to your opinion. Apparently you feel a need to stick up for those fringe left wing loons.

For future reference - Do you want to be included in that very small group of 3? All you have to do is say the word and I will make the group 4.

I think that you think that I have included you in that group... I have not included you in that group. This is the second post I read from you today, that makes me question that.

Maybe I misread you. Much of your posting has a passive-aggressive tone but not hateful. So, if I am wrong about you, let me know.

I will call a spade a spade, I will stand up and post accordingly with the haters.

Do me a favor and grow a pair.... tell me that you want to be included in the group of 3?

 

[bbsam]

For future reference, I don't give a damn how you categorize me. Read your own post and tell me that you don't hold the fringe left with the same disdain that they hold for you. I am pretty sure that I am fairly centrist if I have MFE insisting that I am a right wing stooge and you calling me a passive aggressive liberal. Carry on with your stupidity secure in the fact that not only do I "have a pair", but that I won't sit passively by when the likes of you and MFE try to pass off your extremism as "mainstream" thought.

 

[Catatonic]

For future reference, I don't give a damn how you categorize me. Read your own post and tell me that you don't hold the fringe left with the same disdain that they hold for you. I am pretty sure that I am fairly centrist if I have MFE insisting that I am a right wing stooge and you calling me a passive aggressive liberal. Carry on with your stupidity secure in the fact that not only do I "have a pair", but that I won't sit passively by when the likes of you and MFE try to pass off your extremism as "mainstream" thought.

OK, let's leave out the liberal and conservative labels.

Can we all agree you are a passive aggressive stooge?
I think this is a good starting point and we can all build on this.

Tease

POS

 

[bbsam]

Fair enough.

 

[bbsam]

"I know you are but what am I?"

 

[Catatonic]

"I know you are but what am I?"

That would be a passive aggressive Pee Wee Herman.

 

[UPS Lifer]

For future reference, I don't give a damn how you categorize me. Read your own post and tell me that you don't hold the fringe left with the same disdain that they hold for you. I am pretty sure that I am fairly centrist if I have MFE insisting that I am a right wing stooge and you calling me a passive aggressive liberal. Carry on with your stupidity secure in the fact that not only do I "have a pair", but that I won't sit passively by when the likes of you and MFE try to pass off your extremism as "mainstream" thought.

BOY are you upset!

- You should not care how I categorize you.

- I ABSOLUTELY have complete disdain for the "FR*NGE" Le#*! (We aren't supposed to use those terms).

- I just realized who MFE is ( I was going to ask you).

- I did not call you a passive aggressive liberal. That is your own characterization - not mine. I said, "

Much of your posting has a passive-aggressive tone but not hateful."

​

- You won't find a post where I call you a liberal, again your characterization not mine.

I find it interesting that you think you are main stream while I "try to pass off my (your) extremism as mainstream thought." So my characterization of you was off. If you see me as an extremist you are a lot further left than you think you are and what I thought of you. I have no doubts that I am right of center because I believe in small government. I look at costs and efficiencies and state's rights issues.

The definition of centrist is subjective. If you see the country (as a whole) thinking similar to you, then you will think you are a centrist. I can say the same thing about my position. That does not make it so.

BUT

If you are going to try and assassinate my character go back and prove that I am an extremist. Just because I take on extremists on the left does not mean I an a right wing extremist. BTW - I am saying "right wing" assuming that is what you meant. You obviously don't know what my positions are on the issues, based on that statement.

Give me some quotes and post links so I can refute them. I have no problem defining my position on any issue. By calling me an extremist you are doing the same thing as those fringe extremists are doing. If you can't defend that position then at least apologize for it. I think I have been respectful of your position in the past. I may not agree with you but no gloves have come off attacking your character. What do you have to say about that?

Also, I appreciate your candor and straight forward approach in the last post.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

How do you interpret the word "BARE" to mean POSSESS, OWN, CARRY or PURCHASE any type of guns?

peace

TOS

As it turns out....

The scribe that penned the constitution.... was a little dyslexic.

 

[upsgrunt]

How do you interpret the word "BARE" to mean POSSESS, OWN, CARRY or PURCHASE any type of guns?

How do you attempt to apply 21st century interpretations of words to 1791 language? The word "BARE" in 1791 was a military term, and not a private persons term, so how do you transform the word into anything else? There is nothing in the second amendment that includes the words, PRIVATE CITIZEN, OWNERSHIP, PURCHASING, COLLECTING or SELF PROTECTION, HOME PROTECTION or anythng else the typical gun owner believes to be contained in the second amendment.

Language Log � What did it mean to ‘bear arms’ in 1791?

The second amendment gives you the RIGHT to "BARE" arms if you were a member of the states militia and even that has its restrictions. In 1792, the militia act was passed by congress and in that, a structure was placed on states on how to form militias and WHO could be in them. One of the key aspects of the ACT was that only FREE WHITE MEN, between the ages of 18 and 45 could be in the militia or possess a weapon.

No blacks, mexicans, asians or any other ethnicity could possess a gun or be in a militia. The ACT further restricted what kinds of weapons those FREE WHITE men could possess.

The second amendment was a military clause being necessary in the begining of the USA and later eliminated in 1903 when the National Guard was created by congress.

There is NOTHING in the second amendment that gives a person the PRIVATE right to own anything, and this is only an interpretation by gun owners and the NRA. The high court ruled in HELLER v DC that a person had a right to possess a gun ONLY in the home, and did NOT extend that right to OUTSIDE the home.

This is why they did not want to take this case. They would have had to rule against GUN owners , the NRA and the Republicans who put them in those chairs.

Instead, they allowed the appellate court rulings to stand in each state and they could keep their hands clean. If the HIGH COURT believed like YOU do, that you have a right to carry a gun on your person, then they would have taken the case and ruled that way.

Unfortunately, the second amendment doesnt give you that right and the HIGH COURT KNOWS IT.

The anti gun movement gets a huge victory in this ruling by the high court to reject the case. NOW, new laws will be written to outlaw semi auto weapons and military style weapons along with concealed weapons permits.

It was a great day for Gun regulation yesterday.

peace

TOS

Please don't assume that I agree with you, because I don't, but the constitution CLEARLY states that one of the qualifications for being president is that they must be a natural born citizen and you don't have a problem with that language being side-stepped. It all boils down to what YOU want, and any quirk in language that you can bring forth into an argument to support your position you are all over it; by contrast, any clear explanation and wording of law that doesn't support your wishes and beliefs is "nonsense".
You can't have it both ways.

 

[satellitedriver]

By it's nature, an opinion cannot be wrong. Just saying.

You are correct.
Thanks for the correction.
If I had said the, said, opinion was based on incorrect data, then maybe I would pass the test for telling( he, she it)- that their opinion had no factual basis.
Damn, Hoke.
You made me write a complex sentence to explain the word wrong.
Just saying.

 

[satellitedriver]

How do you interpret the word "BARE" to mean POSSESS, OWN, CARRY or PURCHASE any type of guns?

How do you attempt to apply 21st century interpretations of words to 1791 language? The word "BARE" in 1791 was a military term, and not a private persons term, so how do you transform the word into anything else? There is nothing in the second amendment that includes the words, PRIVATE CITIZEN, OWNERSHIP, PURCHASING, COLLECTING or SELF PROTECTION, HOME PROTECTION or anythng else the typical gun owner believes to be contained in the second amendment.

Language Log � What did it mean to ‘bear arms’ in 1791?

The second amendment gives you the RIGHT to "BARE" arms if you were a member of the states militia and even that has its restrictions. In 1792, the militia act was passed by congress and in that, a structure was placed on states on how to form militias and WHO could be in them. One of the key aspects of the ACT was that only FREE WHITE MEN, between the ages of 18 and 45 could be in the militia or possess a weapon.

No blacks, mexicans, asians or any other ethnicity could possess a gun or be in a militia. The ACT further restricted what kinds of weapons those FREE WHITE men could possess.

The second amendment was a military clause being necessary in the begining of the USA and later eliminated in 1903 when the National Guard was created by congress.

There is NOTHING in the second amendment that gives a person the PRIVATE right to own anything, and this is only an interpretation by gun owners and the NRA. The high court ruled in HELLER v DC that a person had a right to possess a gun ONLY in the home, and did NOT extend that right to OUTSIDE the home.

This is why they did not want to take this case. They would have had to rule against GUN owners , the NRA and the Republicans who put them in those chairs.

Instead, they allowed the appellate court rulings to stand in each state and they could keep their hands clean. If the HIGH COURT believed like YOU do, that you have a right to carry a gun on your person, then they would have taken the case and ruled that way.

Unfortunately, the second amendment doesnt give you that right and the HIGH COURT KNOWS IT.

The anti gun movement gets a huge victory in this ruling by the high court to reject the case. NOW, new laws will be written to outlaw semi auto weapons and military style weapons along with concealed weapons permits.

It was a great day for Gun regulation yesterday.

peace

TOS

Have you ever heard the term, mixing metaphors?
Your argument/opinion, is flawed.
One case in point, of your uninformed diatribe.
The second amendment was a military clause being necessary in the begining of the USA and later eliminated in 1903 when the National Guard was created by congress.
The Second amendment is not just a clause in the Constitution that can be eliminated by Congress.
The creation of the Nation Guard had zero/jack****/nada reference applying to the Second Amendment.
NOW, new laws will be written to outlaw semi auto weapons and military style weapons along with concealed weapons permits.
If that happens, -(which it will not), then millions of law abiding Americans will be turned in to Felons.
This is not 1939 Germany.
I am not Jewish, and I refuse to lay down my arms to the ruling class.
History will repeat itself.

​

 

[The Other Side]

Have you ever heard the term, mixing metaphors?
Your argument/opinion, is flawed.
One case in point, of your uninformed diatribe.
The second amendment was a military clause being necessary in the begining of the USA and later eliminated in 1903 when the National Guard was created by congress.
The Second amendment is not just a clause in the Constitution that can be eliminated by Congress.
The creation of the Nation Guard had zero/jack****/nada reference applying to the Second Amendment.
NOW, new laws will be written to outlaw semi auto weapons and military style weapons along with concealed weapons permits.
If that happens, -(which it will not), then millions of law abiding Americans will be turned in to Felons.
This is not 1939 Germany.
I am not Jewish, and I refuse to lay down my arms to the ruling class.
Historywill repeat itself.

​

Satellite,

maybe a history lesson is in order for you?? First, you have to know history to understand it. In 1792, one year after (1791) and the creation of the second amendment, congress passed THE MILITIA act of 1792. This is critical to the second amendment as it DEFINED what the militia was and WHO was to be in it. This carried on for decades, until in 1903 all the militia acts were repealed and replaced with the creation of the national guard.

If you believe the 1903 act that created the national guard is unrelated to the second amendment, then youd better look it up.

Lastly, ISRAEL has stricter guns laws today than germany had before WWII.

So, lets get over the jewish thing already.

Peace

TOS

 

[trplnkl]

How do you interpret the word "BARE" to mean POSSESS, OWN, CARRY or PURCHASE any type of guns?

How do you attempt to apply 21st century interpretations of words to 1791 language? The word "BARE" in 1791 was a military term, and not a private persons term, so how do you transform the word into anything else? There is nothing in the second amendment that includes the words, PRIVATE CITIZEN, OWNERSHIP, PURCHASING, COLLECTING or SELF PROTECTION, HOME PROTECTION or anythng else the typical gun owner believes to be contained in the second amendment.

Language Log � What did it mean to ‘bear arms’ in 1791?

The second amendment gives you the RIGHT to "BARE" arms if you were a member of the states militia and even that has its restrictions. In 1792, the militia act was passed by congress and in that, a structure was placed on states on how to form militias and WHO could be in them. One of the key aspects of the ACT was that only FREE WHITE MEN, between the ages of 18 and 45 could be in the militia or possess a weapon.

No blacks, mexicans, asians or any other ethnicity could possess a gun or be in a militia. The ACT further restricted what kinds of weapons those FREE WHITE men could possess.

The second amendment was a military clause being necessary in the begining of the USA and later eliminated in 1903 when the National Guard was created by congress.

There is NOTHING in the second amendment that gives a person the PRIVATE right to own anything, and this is only an interpretation by gun owners and the NRA. The high court ruled in HELLER v DC that a person had a right to possess a gun ONLY in the home, and did NOT extend that right to OUTSIDE the home.

This is why they did not want to take this case. They would have had to rule against GUN owners , the NRA and the Republicans who put them in those chairs.

Instead, they allowed the appellate court rulings to stand in each state and they could keep their hands clean. If the HIGH COURT believed like YOU do, that you have a right to carry a gun on your person, then they would have taken the case and ruled that way.

Unfortunately, the second amendment doesnt give you that right and the HIGH COURT KNOWS IT.

The anti gun movement gets a huge victory in this ruling by the high court to reject the case. NOW, new laws will be written to outlaw semi auto weapons and military style weapons along with concealed weapons permits.

It was a great day for Gun regulation yesterday.

peace

TOS

Nice edit to suit your own purposes. Nice but still a fail. Did you not actually read the article?
From the link you supplied:

Among the numerous amicus briefs submitted is the so-called "Linguists' Brief", written by Dennis E. Baron, Richard W. Bailey, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan. This brief argues that the Second Amendment protects only a public right on two grounds: the afore-mentioned interpretation of the leading clause, and the argument that the expression "bear arms" refers only to the organized military use of arms, not to individual use. They claim that the term "bear arms" is "an idiomatic expression that means 'to serve as a soldier, do military service'".


If true, this would be quite surprising, since there is what seems to me to be a very strong case, nicely put in the The Cato Institute Brief, that the right to bear arms in English law prior to the Bill of Rights was an individual right and that the Founders saw the Second Amendment and similar provisions in state constitutions as continuations and extensions of that tradition. A view contrary to that of the Linguists' Brief is presented by Clayton Cramer, a software engineer and historian, and Joseph Olson, a historian, in their paper What did 'Bear Arms' Mean in the Second Amendment. English usage of the late 18th century is not my area of expertise, but it seems to me that it is the non-linguists who have the stronger case.

The Linguists argument, like that of several previous authors on this topic, is that the phrase "bear arms" when used without modification in documents of the relevant period almost always is shown by context to refer to the military use of arms. Cramer and Olson, on the other hand, argue that to the extent this is true, it is due to selection bias:

If you look in databases consisting almost entirely of government documents, it should not be a surprise that most of the uses will be governmental in nature.

Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that are clearly individual, and have nothing to do with military service.

​

Your own link supports that the right to bear (yes that is the correct usage) arms is indeed individualistic.

 

[trplnkl]

For a follow up to the previous post. Tos said

There is NOTHING in the second amendment that gives a person the PRIVATE right to own anything, and this is only an interpretation by gun owners and the NRA. The high court ruled in HELLER v DC that a person had a right to possess a gun ONLY in the home, and did NOT extend that right to OUTSIDE the home.

Once again, you fail to read and understand your own sources TOS.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

And to back that one up, here is another:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[SUP][1][/SUP] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

That is not one but (at least ) two SCotUS rulings, that state an individual has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT by virtue of the 2nd Amendment to "keep and bear arms".
TOS, you need to get out more.
​

 

[Babagounj]

The National Guard is an extension of existing military complex .
They get their leaders from the existing military ranks , their equipment is gov't issued and have been used to fight in foreign wars .
They can not be considered a militia .
As the way the 2nd is written , it was intended to be a local citizen response unit .

 

[The Other Side]

Nice edit to suit your own purposes. Nice but still a fail. Did you not actually read the article?
From the link you supplied:
[/COLOR]

Your own link supports that the right to bear (yes that is the correct usage) arms is indeed individualistic.

My link brought about the discussions of both sides of the argument. What you extrapolate from them is your business. You point out a segment of the "opinion" of the piece provided by the CATO institute that begins with "IF TRUE".... you cant leave out those words.

Then, it goes on to describe the CATO institutes opinion on the verbal of the second amendment.

The point being, the second amendment was a military clause at the time, and being that it was, attempting to apply a "private citizen" interpretation to it today makes no sense given the structure of the second amendment.

NOWHERE in the second amendment will you find a stand alone sentence that is self defining that states that "The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". Nor will you find any stand alone sentence that says a private person can own, possess, transport or carry a weapon.

How anyone translates the word "BEAR" arms to mean OWNERSHIP is beyond me. I would like to see an definition from anyone where the word "BEAR" means ownership, possession, transportation or carrying.

In reality, the word "BEAR" means nothing without the entire sentence contained in the structure of the second amendment.

The preamble of the sentence "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" is followed by a comma, and that comma means the next portion of the sentence applies to the preamble. "being necessary to the security of a free state", then separated by another comma which means the next portion also applies to the preamble "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" which is separated by another comma, which means the next portion applies to the preamble "shall not be infringed".

Originally, the second amendment was written like this:

"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.[SUP][/SUP]"

It only contained ONE comma. It was clear the intention of the sentence had a military meaning, in the form of a Militia. Further, the congress constructed and passed a guideline for the application of the second amendment in the form of the militia act of 1792.

The NRA and GUN owners themselves have gone to extremes to IGNORE these facts, and the NRA itself leaves out the preamble of the second amendment alltogether.

Most people think the following sentence is in the second amendment:

"THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...

Of course, thats not in the second amendment. Its two "fractions" of a larger sentence combined to form a new, stand alone sentence.

In reality, the second amendment is OUTDATED and should be repealed by congress and replaced with actual language that defines gun ownership and the limitations of the need for guns given the fact that the USA now has a standing army and a full military complex to protect the USA and there would be NO NEED for private citizens to arm themselves to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction.

Peace

TOS

 

[The Other Side]

For a follow up to the previous post. Tos said

Once again, you fail to read and understand your own sources TOS.

And to back that one up, here is another:


That is not one but (at least ) two SCotUS rulings, that state an individual has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT by virtue of the 2nd Amendment to "keep and bear arms".
TOS, you need to get out more.
​

I dont know if you can read or not, and I presume you have some concept of of it, I ask you if you "MISSED" the following words in the text you posted and cited?

""District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.""

In Heller, the court ruled only that Heller had a right to possess a gun IN THE HOME and did not extend that right to CARRYING THE WEAPON ON THE STREET.

This is why they did not want to hear the recent case and allowed the states appellate courts rulings to STAND on gun control. The high court knows it would rule against GUN owners, the NRA and voters like yourself by hearing the case, and it was more prudent to "lay blame" onto the states appellate courts instead of being the ones who validate the states gun control laws.

For now, states have the rights to pass laws like NEW YORK did, and that will limit all kinds of weapons.

No matter what you or I think about the issue, the high court showed its hand and did not protect GUN owners.

A total victory for gun control activists.

Peace

TOS

 

[BigUnionGuy]

A total victory for gun control activists.

Peace

TOS

Umm.... Don't think so


Senate rejects expanded gun background checks - CNN.com

 

[moreluck]

Didn't Harry vote no too ??