Trump will be president
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2016, 09:50 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 09:42 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 09:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please start that thread so your understanding of that Amendment can be improved. Drinking Beverage

Well, he left out that the Heller case overwhelmingly confirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to bear arms, and laid out both the reasons that is so and the reasons why it is within the government's power and responsibility to determine what limits to place on the general, individual right to bear arms.

Justice Stevens was nuts if he thought that's what the founders meant, or that they wouldn't have said so, if that's what they meant. Everyone owned a gun back then, of top military grade (actually, they were usually better than military guns, which were designed to be simpler and more-easily-maintained, for field use by conscripted soldiers), and it's a big part of how we Americans were able to start pushing back the frontier from our coastal colonies, as was still ongoing-in-full when they wrote the 2nd amendment... as was the fact that we had just thrown off a well-trained professional military in our Revolution, thanks in large part to an ability to call up riflemen from across our still-wild colonial inland.

Yet while I happen to think that the "well-regulated militia" part does in fact equate to ownership by citizens of guns for the specific purpose of keeping us well-trained in gun use and to keep tyranny from owning us (be it domestic or foreign), I have to object to the phrase "does not appear in the constitution".

"Machine gun", "bazooka", "Javelin missile", "Stinger missile", "C4/Semtex", and a host of other modern concepts do not appear in the Constitution, either. I have yet to hear one decent argument for why we should allow anyone and everyone in the USA to own/buy/sell Stinger missiles.

So pretty much everyone agrees that a line must be drawn, between a basic hunting rifle and a Stinger missile. The only real question comes in at where that line is drawn, and what levels of licensing we'd need in order to approve Joe Guyonthestreet for the Javelin antitank missile, or whatever in between. For some reason, 2nd Amendment advocates think you're the devil if your opinion of "where do we draw that line" is even one rung further down the ladder than their own.

And yet logically, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to let us fight our own government, then we'd have to own Stingers and Javelins, wouldn't we, in order to combat the government's helicopters and tanks.

The key is the phrase "well-regulated", which says that yes, America is built upon the armed yeoman, capable of making up a militia at need (in case of tyranny, break glass), and having readily-available guns and gun culture is part of that ability to form such partisan groups should the need ever arise. But we must regulate how that happens so it's not child's play for some wannabe statement-maker to go get a GE M134 Minigun and put 6000 rounds per minute into a stadium crowd.

No sane person thinks there should be no limits on the 2nd amendment, for that reason. The question then is how do we regulate, and to what limit may the government do so... these are questions we are hashing out in the legislature and courts. What bothers me is that the rhetoric of groups like the NRA has made it an extremist, "all-or-nothing" argument in which neither side seems able to be reasonable about it.

Hillary is not coming to "take all our guns". Gun regulation is not taking your guns, any more than it's taking your bazookas. And FFS if you're talking about armed insurrection because you don't like someone who was elected, then you're a goddamned traitor. Knock it off.

Likewise, people who come from American subcultures that are not familiar with gun culture need to stop talking about gun owners like we're mostly weirdos and power-hungry creeps who're likely to snap and hurt someone. It is ridiculous and not only stifles the conversation but it gives vultures like Wayne LaPierre all the ammunition they need (pun intended) to stymie legitimate discussions about whether we should expand or change the nature of our gun regulatory laws.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about all this.

Given that a javelin launcher and a single javelin to fire from it would run about 200k, it probably never occurs to Joe Guyonthestreet to waste much effort debating his right to acquire them Big Grin.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like yakherder's post
26-10-2016, 10:01 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 09:42 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 09:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please start that thread so your understanding of that Amendment can be improved. Drinking Beverage

Well, he left out that the Heller case overwhelmingly confirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to bear arms, and laid out both the reasons that is so and the reasons why it is within the government's power and responsibility to determine what limits to place on the general, individual right to bear arms.

Justice Stevens was nuts if he thought that's what the founders meant, or that they wouldn't have said so, if that's what they meant. Everyone owned a gun back then, of top military grade (actually, they were usually better than military guns, which were designed to be simpler and more-easily-maintained, for field use by conscripted soldiers), and it's a big part of how we Americans were able to start pushing back the frontier from our coastal colonies, as was still ongoing-in-full when they wrote the 2nd amendment... as was the fact that we had just thrown off a well-trained professional military in our Revolution, thanks in large part to an ability to call up riflemen from across our still-wild colonial inland.

Yet while I happen to think that the "well-regulated militia" part does in fact equate to ownership by citizens of guns for the specific purpose of keeping us well-trained in gun use and to keep tyranny from owning us (be it domestic or foreign), I have to object to the phrase "does not appear in the constitution".

"Machine gun", "bazooka", "Javelin missile", "Stinger missile", "C4/Semtex", and a host of other modern concepts do not appear in the Constitution, either. I have yet to hear one decent argument for why we should allow anyone and everyone in the USA to own/buy/sell Stinger missiles.

So pretty much everyone agrees that a line must be drawn, between a basic hunting rifle and a Stinger missile. The only real question comes in at where that line is drawn, and what levels of licensing we'd need in order to approve Joe Guyonthestreet for the Javelin antitank missile, or whatever in between. For some reason, 2nd Amendment advocates think you're the devil if your opinion of "where do we draw that line" is even one rung further down the ladder than their own.

And yet logically, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to let us fight our own government, then we'd have to own Stingers and Javelins, wouldn't we, in order to combat the government's helicopters and tanks.

The key is the phrase "well-regulated", which says that yes, America is built upon the armed yeoman, capable of making up a militia at need (in case of tyranny, break glass), and having readily-available guns and gun culture is part of that ability to form such partisan groups should the need ever arise. But we must regulate how that happens so it's not child's play for some wannabe statement-maker to go get a GE M134 Minigun and put 6000 rounds per minute into a stadium crowd.

No sane person thinks there should be no limits on the 2nd amendment, for that reason. The question then is how do we regulate, and to what limit may the government do so... these are questions we are hashing out in the legislature and courts. What bothers me is that the rhetoric of groups like the NRA has made it an extremist, "all-or-nothing" argument in which neither side seems able to be reasonable about it.

Hillary is not coming to "take all our guns". Gun regulation is not taking your guns, any more than it's taking your bazookas. And FFS if you're talking about armed insurrection because you don't like someone who was elected, then you're a goddamned traitor. Knock it off.

Likewise, people who come from American subcultures that are not familiar with gun culture need to stop talking about gun owners like we're mostly weirdos and power-hungry creeps who're likely to snap and hurt someone. It is ridiculous and not only stifles the conversation but it gives vultures like Wayne LaPierre all the ammunition they need (pun intended) to stymie legitimate discussions about whether we should expand or change the nature of our gun regulatory laws.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about all this.

An excellent write-up.

I wanted to answer the question you alluded to a few times in what you wrote.

The 2nd amendment refers to "arms" as well as "well regulated." Obviously you know that well regulated meant well trained during the 18th century. Well regulated troops with "arms" were known as "regulars." They were armed with basic weapons like rifles and pistols, similar to regular infantry troops of today. They would not have cannons or mortors or junk like that.

The 2nd amendment is obviously referring to "arms" as basic military small arms. A militia member would not be asked to provide their own cannon. Nor would they have stinger missiles or bazookas. We should be able to have the equivalent small arms of the time. That is all.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Lord Dark Helmet's post
27-10-2016, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2016 02:23 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Trump will be president
nevemind

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
27-10-2016, 04:57 AM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 08:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 02:46 PM)Dom Wrote:  What are sanctuary cities?

Like in San Francisco they refuse to prosecute people accused of being illegal. They won't turn people in.

There are some 31 of them across the country.

sounds like a very biblical concept to me

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
27-10-2016, 06:25 AM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 08:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 02:46 PM)Dom Wrote:  What are sanctuary cities?

Like in San Francisco they refuse to prosecute people accused of being illegal. They won't turn people in.

There are some 31 of them across the country.

That describes the entire State of Maryland. We give them healthcare and food stamps and schooling too. Of course, we have the highest per capita income in the US so we can afford it. Big Grin

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
27-10-2016, 06:27 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2016 06:33 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Trump will be president
(25-10-2016 12:08 PM)adey67 Wrote:  We in Britain have a social health care system but mention it to some Americans and you'll think you've asked to shit in their mouth, personally I don't understand that at all.

You need to ask an American if you can shit in their mouth and compare their response.

For Science!
Find all posts by this user
27-10-2016, 06:38 AM
RE: Trump will be president
(27-10-2016 06:27 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(25-10-2016 12:08 PM)adey67 Wrote:  We in Britain have a social health care system but mention it to some Americans and you'll think you've asked to shit in their mouth, personally I don't understand that at all.

You need to ask an American if you can shit in their mouth and compare their response.

For Science!

Vitamin B12 supplement.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
27-10-2016, 06:59 AM
RE: Trump will be president
(27-10-2016 06:27 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(25-10-2016 12:08 PM)adey67 Wrote:  We in Britain have a social health care system but mention it to some Americans and you'll think you've asked to shit in their mouth, personally I don't understand that at all.

You need to ask an American if you can shit in their mouth and compare their response.

For Science!

LolzBig Grin
Find all posts by this user
27-10-2016, 07:00 AM
RE: Trump will be president
(27-10-2016 06:38 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(27-10-2016 06:27 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  You need to ask an American if you can shit in their mouth and compare their response.

For Science!

Vitamin B12 supplement.

Ewww Rainbow Vomit
Find all posts by this user
27-10-2016, 07:04 AM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 09:42 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Hillary is not coming to "take all our guns". Gun regulation is not taking your guns, ...

Your post was very well stated, succinct and clear. However, I think she is far more toward the "take all your guns" end of the spectrum than you seem to.

She has stated that she completely disagrees with Heller and will work from day one to see it struck down. She has also expressed admiration for Australia's approach and wants to consider it for the U.S.

hillarylinton.com

Her language there is disingenuous.
What "weapons of war" is she talking about?
She wants to reinstate the "assault weapons" ban which has been shown to have had no positive effect.
There is no "gun show loophole" or "internet sales loophole". The buying and selling of guns are already covered by state and federal laws.

From the Washington Post.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: