Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #47521
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    That's an ahistorical reading of the law. Indeed, on its face, the Congressional power to create a standing army and navy probably did more to set in stone that the 2nd Amendment needed to be included.

    The 2nd Amendment was written -- like all the rest of them -- nearly a century prior to the incorporation doctrine, so must be understood like the rest to have been drafted with respect to how citizens and the several states would relate to the new federal government. To wit, a well-regulated militia (i.e. ordinary citizens who could competently handle weapons) being necessary to the security of a free state (i.e. the sovereign members of the union, free from any attempt at central federal tyranny over them), the right of the people (that's us, ya'll) to keep and bear arms (muh guns) shall not be infringed (shall not be infringed).
    That is the complete opposite of the truth. What's the point of saying "well-regulated" in the constitution if it meant nothing? Well-regulated militia meant exactly that, a militia that regularly trained and maintained an armory for their local community. Many large battles were fought over control of armories all over New England, because they were critical to the regulation of the local militias. It was where whey came to attention when called, it was where they dressed in uniform, where they trained with their arms, and where they returned their arms, ammo, and uniform once their duty has been met. This was funded by the local wealthy land-owners and merchants in lieu of them being called into militia-service. When the national army came into service, doubly so when state national guards came into service, this amendment became de-facto nullified because the need for a local militia became irrelevant. Modern arguments to include this as some right to private gun ownership is a sham, and the founding fathers would of dissolved and ratified a new constitution a dozen times over by now.

  2. #47522
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoranon View Post
    Heh I did not expect one of the anti-gun nuts to be so brazen. But it has been clear for some time that compromising with anti-gun people is pointless, it only leads to more regulation.

    I also think that she does not actually want any gun regulation to pass, since proclaiming herself to be anti-gun is a vote winner in some parts of the country.

    The problem is the left burned that bridge a long time ago.

    If this country truly had "reasonable" debates on gun-control both the shitbirds on the right and the left wouldn't be so polarized.

    The problem is neither the left or the right is stupid to what the other side really wants.

    Then you have people in the middle like me. I've done nothing to break any laws, leave me the fuck alone.

  3. #47523
    Quote Originally Posted by kasuke06 View Post
    I like guns as a concept, you know, things to take apart and admire the mechanical beauty of so many little bits of things coming together in purity of purpose.
    Guns are great fun to tinker with, and while expensive sometimes, are much less money than car-guys have to deal with. Other than a few keepers, when I get a gun, upgrade/change it to what I had in mind, it then becomes boring and half the time I trade it in for the next project...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    Making them harder to obtain in general makes them harder for a criminal to obtain as well.
    Isn't that the same as saying cut the taxes of the rich and that money will trickle down?
    Take guns away from millions so you can affect the thousands, sound policy for running a government, lets clear out all those other rights that folks no longer need while we have the red-pen out.

    There's also the fact that a lot of incidents occur with legally owned firearms and the vast majority of those people would probably not have taken the time or risk to go out and get an illegal firearm first. Or at the very least, in cases of crimes of passions, they may not have that gun already and aren't likely to go out and get one without giving their decision more thought and perhaps changing their mind.
    "a lot" in the sense that we ignore transference and just assume any gun that was ever legally involved in commerce fits your skewed outlook, I guess.

    If ATF would investigate and prosecute straw purchases and non-approvals, maybe there'd be fewer guns in the hands of criminals.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    That is the complete opposite of the truth. What's the point of saying "well-regulated" in the constitution if it meant nothing? Well-regulated militia meant exactly that, a militia that regularly trained and maintained an armory for their local community.
    Because for a well regulated (i.e., trained) soldier to come to the militia, he needed ready access to firearms to train with in the offtime. This isn't a new concept, and it's actually still a continuing concern! During the draft, there were many complaints that folks had no experience with firearms in even the most basic sense.

    In other words, "Because we want folks to know how guns work, everyone has unlimited access to guns". I think if your interpretation was closer, with some central armory, then they would have made more mention of issuing guns or at least access to the stockpile or similar. Something like Switzerlands "here, this is a machinegun, keep it home and qualify every (year? two years? I forget)".
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  4. #47524
    Scarab Lord Zoranon's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Czech Republic, Euro-Atlantic civilisation
    Posts
    4,071
    Quote Originally Posted by TITAN308 View Post
    The problem is the left burned that bridge a long time ago.

    If this country truly had "reasonable" debates on gun-control both the shitbirds on the right and the left wouldn't be so polarized.

    The problem is neither the left or the right is stupid to what the other side really wants.

    Then you have people in the middle like me. I've done nothing to break any laws, leave me the fuck alone.
    Negotiation and compromise will take you only so far. Guns are an excellent example of that. Far too many people on the anti-gun side want to ban all of them. As such, compromising with them is a fools errand.

    The same can sadly be sad for a growing list of topics such as abortion, taxes and so on. If the two sides are complete opposites, negotiation is a waste of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by b2121945 View Post
    Don't see what's wrong with fighting alongside Nazi Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by JfmC View Post
    someone who disagrees with me is simply wrong.

  5. #47525
    Quote Originally Posted by TITAN308 View Post
    HaHa. How many times have people on here been told, "your slipper slope idea is so silly!"
    The slippery slope is easy enough to see.
    1934, register machine guns
    1968 ban importation of machineguns
    1986 ban new manufacture of machines for commercial sale
    1994+ ban anything that looks like a machinegun
    2017+ ban bump stocks that let you pretend you have a machinegun.

    I think it's worth noting that the use of registered machine guns in crime since 1934 is non-existent. They still had to keep banning shit though, because that's the point.

    It's also worth noting that the Vegas guy had plenty of money and time. He could have bought a real machinegun years ago. He could have bought a beltfed upper for the machinegun.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoranon View Post
    Negotiation and compromise will take you only so far. Guns are an excellent example of that. Far too many people on the anti-gun side want to ban all of them. As such, compromising with them is a fools errand.

    The same can sadly be sad for a growing list of topics such as abortion, taxes and so on. If the two sides are complete opposites, negotiation is a waste of time.
    You know what I hate? The current crop of "we need to at least have a discussion about it, that's all we're saying" rhetoric. Each time gun control is discussed and folks want to "comprimise", it means taking away more rights. No one in this "discussion" and "comprimise" from the gun control side is looking to discuss anything except their list of demands and see which they can get through. Most of which has nothing to do with the situation that happened!

    So lets have a discussion, they want to classify bump stocks as machineguns, so be it. In return, lets compromise and remove the ban on new machine guns. All machineguns will still be registered. That'll never happen, there is no give and take. It's just a tactic to make gun rights advocates look like they are unreasonable while ignoring all the other times gun control HAS passed with the promise of "and this is the line".

    They're using the vegas shooter to fight the bill to remove silencers from the NFA and treat them as any other firearm. If the guy had a silencer, it would have probably melted and there probably would have been less shots!
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  6. #47526
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post

    Because for a well regulated (i.e., trained) soldier to come to the militia, he needed ready access to firearms to train with in the offtime. This isn't a new concept, and it's actually still a continuing concern! During the draft, there were many complaints that folks had no experience with firearms in even the most basic sense.

    In other words, "Because we want folks to know how guns work, everyone has unlimited access to guns". I think if your interpretation was closer, with some central armory, then they would have made more mention of issuing guns or at least access to the stockpile or similar. Something like Switzerlands "here, this is a machinegun, keep it home and qualify every (year? two years? I forget)".
    Which is why they put in "well regulated" in the prefatory clause; they wanted local communities to regularly train able-bodied men funded by wealthy land-owners and merchants via a local armory which housed the ammo, the uniforms, the rifles, the cannons, the etc. In larger communities these armories had barracks for longer commitments to longer tours of duty, and you can see the dozens and dozens of skirmishes and battles that were fought for control of these armories by the British, which is why at ratification the importance of a well regulated militia was so tantamount they made it the 2nd amendment.

    It was mentioned as I said above, the prefatory clause is extremely specific about the need of a well regulated militia for all able bodied men in their community. It makes sense numerically as well, for the 3rd amendment gave those local communities legal protection against prolonged British sieges against their armories, as they did in the American Revolution.

  7. #47527
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Which is why they put in "well regulated" in the prefatory clause; they wanted local communities to regularly train able-bodied men funded by wealthy land-owners and merchants via a local armory which housed the ammo, the uniforms, the rifles, the cannons, the etc. In larger communities these armories had barracks for longer commitments to longer tours of duty, and you can see the dozens and dozens of skirmishes and battles that were fought for control of these armories by the British, which is why at ratification the importance of a well regulated militia was so tantamount they made it the 2nd amendment.

    It was mentioned as I said above, the prefatory clause is extremely specific about the need of a well regulated militia for all able bodied men in their community. It makes sense numerically as well, for the 3rd amendment gave those local communities legal protection against prolonged British sieges against their armories, as they did in the American Revolution.
    They didn't say all that. They said "because we want people to know how to use guns, they need unrestricted access to guns". They didn't say "becaue local communities must train able bodied men funded by wealthy land owners" in some sort of serf army.

    You can read into anything you want, really, and accuse me of the same, obviously. The simple fact is that they didn't form a militia. They explained why everyone had the right to arms, not as a limitation on their ability to bear arms. It says "you have a right to guns, because of this" not "you have a right to guns, but only in this circumstance" (usually National Guard in these sort of discussions).

    And all those that want to represent it as a collective right, none ever fight to put machine guns into the hands of every adult male between 18 and 45, so what's the point?
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  8. #47528
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    They didn't say all that. They said "because we want people to know how to use guns, they need unrestricted access to guns". They didn't say "becaue local communities must train able bodied men funded by wealthy land owners" in some sort of serf army.

    You can read into anything you want, really, and accuse me of the same, obviously. The simple fact is that they didn't form a militia. They explained why everyone had the right to arms, not as a limitation on their ability to bear arms. It says "you have a right to guns, because of this" not "you have a right to guns, but only in this circumstance" (usually National Guard in these sort of discussions).

    And all those that want to represent it as a collective right, none ever fight to put machine guns into the hands of every adult male between 18 and 45, so what's the point?
    What? Now you are getting yourself confused by interpreting words that aren't even in the prefatory clause. They said "A trained and stocked militia is tantamount to protection against foreign invasion, as such, there shall be no law or restriction on them." You don't have to go out of your way to see what they said, it's all right there and makes historical sense, as well as numerically in the bill of rights, right next to their legal protection against foreign armies occupying their property to lay siege against their militias and armories, as just happened less than 20 years after the American Revolution. You must remember most of these men were either in a militia or funded/aided a local militia is some form or fashion during the American Revolution. Their best practices (stocked and trained militia with an armory) from that war is what made it into the bill of rights, as well as grave injustices that would hoped to be curbed through the bill of rights.

    That's basically what the Bill of Rights is, best practices and preventative measures against issues that arose from the war with the British.

  9. #47529
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexx226 View Post
    That's an extremely broad generalization to make. Most of the time they're also anti-heroes. There's a difference. Regardless, you just claiming hypocrisy doesn't make it so. You can't seem to actually argue how it's hypocritical.
    Oh bullshit. An "anti-hero" is just a way to spin a law breaking mass murderer as a good guy.

    Also I'm not going to argue the hypocrisy of it with you. I might as well try to convince a drunk he has a drinking problem.

  10. #47530
    The Lightbringer Clone's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Kamino
    Posts
    3,027
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    Nope, but if a simple question can't be answered... one can only assume the bot status of those not answering.
    It is a simple question really....

    Logic flow:
    If you have read the real history of the NRA and the 2nd Amendment scam -> you can discuss the gun issue in the US sensibly.
    If you have not - then your emotions are governed by a scam and what ever you argue about the gun issue in the US is just babble.
    What scam?

  11. #47531
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    You know what I hate? The current crop of "we need to at least have a discussion about it, that's all we're saying" rhetoric. Each time gun control is discussed and folks want to "comprimise", it means taking away more rights. No one in this "discussion" and "comprimise" from the gun control side is looking to discuss anything except their list of demands and see which they can get through. Most of which has nothing to do with the situation that happened!

    So lets have a discussion, they want to classify bump stocks as machineguns, so be it. In return, lets compromise and remove the ban on new machine guns. All machineguns will still be registered. That'll never happen, there is no give and take. It's just a tactic to make gun rights advocates look like they are unreasonable while ignoring all the other times gun control HAS passed with the promise of "and this is the line".

    They're using the vegas shooter to fight the bill to remove silencers from the NFA and treat them as any other firearm. If the guy had a silencer, it would have probably melted and there probably would have been less shots!
    We should let billionaires have the ability to purchase nuclear weapons that would be a nice compromise

    I am not sure why I bother people like you don't really think there's a problem, it's all about your obsession with guns screw everything else.

  12. #47532
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    We should let billionaires have the ability to purchase nuclear weapons that would be a nice compromise
    I'm pretty sure a millionaire could buy all sorts of weapons of mass destruction, what's your point?

    I am not sure why I bother people like you don't really think there's a problem, it's all about your obsession with guns screw everything else.
    Then don't? This is a gun debate thread, you're going to find gun rights advocates that believe they should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. If you can't handle that, it seems odd to participate. And it's not "screw everybody else", it's "enforce laws and go after criminals, don't create new laws that will only hinder the law abiding".

    But really, prove me wrong, is there some "discussion" that should occur that doesn't boil down to "we need to restrict things more!"?
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  13. #47533
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Then don't? This is a gun debate thread, you're going to find gun rights advocates that believe they should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. If you can't handle that, it seems odd to participate. And it's not "screw everybody else", it's "enforce laws and go after criminals, don't create new laws that will only hinder the law abiding".

    But really, prove me wrong, is there some "discussion" that should occur that doesn't boil down to "we need to restrict things more!"?
    Most people are asking for the bare minimum most democrats and republicans want some basic fundamental gun control laws. Please let me know how these infringe your rights.

    1) Let the CDC and other federal agency collect data and do studies on gun violence and it's effects.
    2) Staffing the ATF so they can inspect the 65K+ gun shops in the country as well as have a better handle on the illegal gun trade.
    3) More money for mental health and discuss a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
    4) Have a better handle on gun alterations and modifications including 3D printing.
    5) Allow the sales of smart guns especially for parents to bring down instances where kids shoot each other and themselves.

    All of these are very basic things that we aren't doing right now.

  14. #47534
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Most people are asking for the bare minimum most democrats and republicans want some basic fundamental gun control laws. Please let me know how these infringe your rights.

    1) Let the CDC and other federal agency collect data and do studies on gun violence and it's effects.
    This has been discussed in the thread before, but the "ban" on CDC studies isn't what it's portrayed as. Mind you, criminal stuff is more appropriate for the various studies that the DoJ does.
    2) Staffing the ATF so they can inspect the 65K+ gun shops in the country as well as have a better handle on the illegal gun trade.
    Budget problems have nothing to do with laws, so not sure what part of the "discussion" this is. The money does have to come from somewhere of course, and in general most folks would rather see the ATF disbanded and their role included in the FBI. Certainly the ATF doesn't need the response teams armed and armored, they're investigators, not responders.
    3) More money for mental health and discuss a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
    Most of the issues with mental health records for background checks is actually caused by the myriad "personal health information"/ privacy laws.

    4) Have a better handle on gun alterations and modifications including 3D printing.
    3D printing is a buzzword of very little significance to firearms. Machine shops and CNC manufacturing has been around a lot longer and is in general more appropriate. I guess there's a discussion to be had on "gun alterations" if you mean the Bumpfire stock, but ATF had that discussion and deemed the stock legal.
    5) Allow the sales of smart guns especially for parents to bring down instances where kids shoot each other and themselves.
    ? No one is disallowing them. They suck, so no one buys them, especially for how overpriced they are. Obviously I'm against MANDATING them.

    All of these are very basic things that we aren't doing right now.
    Revoking health privacy laws won't go anywhere. You might as well complain about the over zealous ADA stuff in life. ATF budgets aren't the problem as much as federal prosecutor budgets, I think. There's also a strong "corporate culture" where they do not want to waste time on small matters. They'd rather let a gun-runner hit 50 sold for the big fish rather than stop him at 3.

    There's also the ATF Director stuff, which is like the CDC study thing. You need to have these, but you can't have them start with the idea that guns are bad and need to be removed from the populous.

    Really I think your main point is the "gun alterations and modifications", but I don't think you really understand the current make/modify laws.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  15. #47535
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Most people are asking for the bare minimum most democrats and republicans want some basic fundamental gun control laws. Please let me know how these infringe your rights.

    1) Let the CDC and other federal agency collect data and do studies on gun violence and it's effects.
    2) Staffing the ATF so they can inspect the 65K+ gun shops in the country as well as have a better handle on the illegal gun trade.
    3) More money for mental health and discuss a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
    4) Have a better handle on gun alterations and modifications including 3D printing.
    5) Allow the sales of smart guns especially for parents to bring down instances where kids shoot each other and themselves.

    All of these are very basic things that we aren't doing right now.
    1) The CDC is not barred from doing studies on gun violence and its effects.
    2) The ATF is already funded to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars. And more agents and inspections sound nice, but wouldn't necessarily have a substantial impact on the major sources of gun violence.
    3) More money for mental health is a start, but the real issues are finding a way to remove/limit the negative stigma of asking for mental health help, and finding a way to make sure those who are professionally deemed to be a danger to themself or others are duly recorded as such in a way that is accessible to a firearm background check but also conscious of medical record privacy. Also of concern is making sure that a legitimate indication of "danger to self or others" is still the criterion used in determining whether one is "mentally unstable" enough to be prohibited from possessing firearms; mild depression isn't enough of reason to restrict a right.
    4) I'm going to avoid the obvious pun concerning bumpfire stocks and "better handles".
    5) So-called "smart guns" are not banned. But they're also ineffective, easily beaten, and no substitute for careful parenting.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  16. #47536
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    1) The CDC is not barred from doing studies on gun violence and its effects.
    2) The ATF is already funded to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars. And more agents and inspections sound nice, but wouldn't necessarily have a substantial impact on the major sources of gun violence.
    3) More money for mental health is a start, but the real issues are finding a way to remove/limit the negative stigma of asking for mental health help, and finding a way to make sure those who are professionally deemed to be a danger to themself or others are duly recorded as such in a way that is accessible to a firearm background check but also conscious of medical record privacy. Also of concern is making sure that a legitimate indication of "danger to self or others" is still the criterion used in determining whether one is "mentally unstable" enough to be prohibited from possessing firearms; mild depression isn't enough of reason to restrict a right.
    4) I'm going to avoid the obvious pun concerning bumpfire stocks and "better handles".
    5) So-called "smart guns" are not banned. But they're also ineffective, easily beaten, and no substitute for careful parenting.
    1) The language "discourages" studies and gun studies are unreliable due to the general lack of data.
    2) 800 agents for 65K+ gun shops, they have to use paper for gun shop registrations since they are not allowed to use computers for that aspect. The ATF is severely underfunded. The point is to let the agencies do it's job and crack down on the illegal gun trade, right now the ATF exists in name only, if you want better management of the money that is reasonable.
    3) agreed
    4) lol
    5) They were never released on the mass market due to a combination of stupidity from a left wing nutter and the NRA. They never had a chance, there is obviously a contradiction between having a gun to protect yourself an making it less accessible due to fear of your kids shooting themselves.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    snip.
    No smart guns should not be mandated but they should be an option, they never had a chance to be widely released to the public due to partisanship. The covering of 3D printing is to keep up with upcoming technology in general not what is possible right now. ATF reforms we can agree on, I don't think it should be part of the FBI but inspectors, oversight and data purveyors that work alongside the FBI. There can be a discussion for additional laws, my concerns is that the current laws are not being properly enforced and more information is needed.
    Last edited by Draco-Onis; 2017-10-08 at 01:32 AM.

  17. #47537
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    1) The language "discourages" studies and gun studies are unreliable due to the general lack of data.
    The language only specifically bars the CDC from using federal funding to promote gun control. It doesn't prohibit them from doing research on gun violence, per se, just from being political about their conclusions. Moreover, the CDC, as far as I'm aware, is not barred in any way from obtaining funding outside the federal government for use in this area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    2) 800 agents for 65K+ gun shops, they have to use paper for gun registrations since they are not allowed to use computers for that aspect. The ATF is severely underfunded. The point is to let the agencies do it's job and crack down on the illegal gun trade, right now the ATF exists in name only, if you want better management of the money that is reasonable.
    The ATF has over 5000 agents in total, however. And "have to use paper"? That's incorrect. First, the ATF does not keep registration information, except for out-of-business FFLs. They mostly facilitate the moving of information from manufacturer/retailer to law enforcement agencies. And their out-of-business files, which are paper, are scanned to microfilm; they do not "have to use paper".

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    5) They were never released on the mass market due to a combination of stupidity from a left wing nutter and the NRA. They never had a chance, there is obviously a contradiction between having a gun to protect yourself an making it less accessible due to fear of your kids shooting themselves.
    They were also frankly not released to the market because there's nary a market for them.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  18. #47538
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    The language only specifically bars the CDC from using federal funding to promote gun control. It doesn't prohibit them from doing research on gun violence, per se, just from being political about their conclusions. Moreover, the CDC, as far as I'm aware, is not barred in any way from obtaining funding outside the federal government for use in this area.
    Why would a government agency use non federal funds for something only the government would have the most data on? As I understand the wording of language made it very difficult for them to even gather the data since it can be interpreted in different ways and violation would rather be easy.
    The ATF has over 5000 agents in total, however. And "have to use paper"? That's incorrect. First, the ATF does not keep registration information, except for out-of-business FFLs. They mostly facilitate the moving of information from manufacturer/retailer to law enforcement agencies. And their out-of-business files, which are paper, are scanned to microfilm; they do not "have to use paper".
    800 or so inspectors, I am more than open to reform but it is obvious they aren't doing their jobs. The US congress passed a law barring them from using computers for certain tasks which would make tracing the sale and origin of a gun much easier and more efficient.

    They were also frankly not released to the market because there's nary a market for them.
    They were never released nationwide, any gun shop that carried them was quickly descended upon by the NRA dogs. You can't say there wasn't a market for it since it was never given a shot.

  19. #47539
    That Enfield is beautiful.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    That is the complete opposite of the truth. What's the point of saying "well-regulated" in the constitution if it meant nothing? Well-regulated militia meant exactly that, a militia that regularly trained and maintained an armory for their local community. Many large battles were fought over control of armories all over New England, because they were critical to the regulation of the local militias. It was where whey came to attention when called, it was where they dressed in uniform, where they trained with their arms, and where they returned their arms, ammo, and uniform once their duty has been met. This was funded by the local wealthy land-owners and merchants in lieu of them being called into militia-service. When the national army came into service, doubly so when state national guards came into service, this amendment became de-facto nullified because the need for a local militia became irrelevant. Modern arguments to include this as some right to private gun ownership is a sham, and the founding fathers would of dissolved and ratified a new constitution a dozen times over by now.
    Well-regulated, in the common usage of the phrase contemporary to the writing (y'know, the one and only interpretation that should bear on the effect of the amendment itself), described a unit that could march straight and all knew which direction to point their weapon. Yours is a willfully, intentionally dishonest reading.

    Also, all ten amendment in the Bill of Rights speak to individual liberty interests, with the 10th including the reservation of power to the states as well as individual liberty interests. Only an intellectually fraud would try to insist that #2 on a list of 10 protections of individual liberty interests, somehow fails to speak to any individual liberty at all, despite using the one verbatim phrase we know that in every other context the Framers explicitly meant individually liberty -- "right of the people".

  20. #47540
    Deleted
    problem with any talk of weapons bans for America is you guys missed the boat if you were gonna ban guns you needed to do it before they were affordable like in Europe, now guns are just to much a part of your culture and national identity and far to wide spread that any form of gun control isnt going to have any effect on the sector that commit the most gun violence which is organised crime. alot of people make the case in this thread of back ground checking, blocking the mentaly ill but guns are so wide spread and available that any restriction will only fuel a black market. if a shooter cant get his gun legally he will get it illegally just how Britons knife laws didnt mean anything to the terrorists who attacked London with machetes.

    hate to say but you guys are doomed to just have this repeat and there's nothing you can do about it toughen your laws / crack down and you just get a black market

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •