Question on wording of the Second amendment

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

AgedGrunt:

LetalisK:

taciturnCandid:

The constitution really should be amended to make the wording clear. For all we know, it could refer to the ability to form an armed militia and not the ability for individuals to own weapons.

Vagueness and contradiction were built into the Constitution by design. The Founders didn't want a foundation of federal power that was too strong or too inert. The amendment process was put in to allow it to officially change, but all the little nuances(or rather, lack thereof) were there to create a document that more or less fought against itself to keep it from becoming one gigantic hammer someone could wield over others.

There is also this little nugget here:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which the federal government would like everyone to forget. Actually, it doesn't need to anymore, enough of the public has been brainwashed into believing the fed has absolute authority that its just swallowing everything year after year.

Which is contradicted by the supremacy clause. Like I said, the Constitution is a carefully crafted document that any casual passerby would be forgiven for seeing a total clusterfuck.

Hafrael:
If you seriously believe that any citizen with the means to produce or acquire a nuclear bomb should be allowed to own one you are delusional. That is just crazy.

If the US government gets one then so should the citizenry. If the government disarms then come and talk to me.

Btw, any firearm you have is not going to stop the US armed forces, not in a million years.

Really? How much ordinance do you think the US government would have to expend to take out little old me? How long do you think the US government can keep using massive amounts of fuel and personnel to take on a rebel force that is destroying the military's base of supply? In other words, it would quickly turn into an infantry battle. And guess what, your average soldier cannot effectively engage a target at 300 meters. For us on the other hand-

See those targets way in the back? Those are 1,000 yard targets, for one competition, in one state.

dmase:
Taxes on goods specifically luxury goods

The taxes the founders envisioned were generally imports (except in grave emergencies). We do not import very many firearms (lots of parts but few complete firearms).

if your fine with putting a tax on specific things because of it's uses your fine prohibiting it.

Poor logic. The purpose of a tax to the founders was revenue. They needed funds to maintain a navy and diplomatic corps to ensure trade and therefore imported goods had to be paid for.

any corruption should be handled by the courts especially in today's society.

And what happens when the court fails to act (as it failed to do in Athens)?

the people delivering the guns are american citizens from legal american distributors pretty much all the time

Negative. The illegal guns are from the Mexican military. There have been 250,000 desertions from the Mexican military in the past decade. Where American firearms come in is the fact that, as with most nations, the Mexican military uses American firearms.

And invasion my ass we have nation guard and constant border patrol along the border

Mexican deserters are attacking and killing American civilians. To most, that is an invasion.

along with police officers as you say a 10 minute ride away.

30 minutes or more along much of the border. That area is not well populated.

Oh why thank you, and you still haven't changed the meaning. People in the 1700's did have protection a 10 minute drive away and usually if you received assistance it was in the form of regular american citizens whose experience using firearms where limited... which is my point times are different vastly different.

What? American civilians in the 1700s had far more experience with firearms than virtually all of our modern police officers. 40 hours of training at the academy? Try a decade of shooting experience by the time you were 20.

Also, most citizens had an entire militia half and hours muster away.

we should completely reformat the constitution almost from the ground up.

And why won't you do it-

That's not gonna happen though because their is an illusion among most americans specifically conservatives that the founding father are infallible.

No, it is their opinion that we should follow the goddamn rule of law. You will not do anything because you actually have to do something. Sorry, but our system was set up so that you have to convince people. You are not supposed to just railroad your ideas through without any thought or reason.

We have basically changed the way our system works to make it impossible to change the system, flawed statement sure but it cuts to the heart of the matter.

No, the statement is completely false. We have not made the system harder to change it was always supposed to be hard to change. Y'all just do not have the political capital to change what y'all want. And because of that weakness y'all are refusing to even try and change things the right way. Instead, y'all want to destroy the entire system to make way for your own beliefs.

Our attitudes regarding the past changed making the threshold necessary to amend a present article impossible to do even with 60% of the populace behind a proposal.

Attitudes regarding the past? Bullshit.

Sorry to break it to you, but the world has always been as that way.

New opinions are always suspected, if not usually opposed, if for no other reason than they are not already commonly held and accepted.

-John Locke

Try harder and stop trying to destroy the rule of law.

(exhibit A gun regulation attempts)

Have you ever considered the idea that maybe, just maybe, you are more in the minority than you think?

farson135:
snipped

"The taxes the founders envisioned were generally imports (except in grave emergencies). We do not import very many firearms (lots of parts but few complete firearms)."

No, the whiskey rebellion, everything related to the distillation of whiskey was from the US and George Washington agreed with it.

"Poor logic. The purpose of a tax to the founders was revenue. They needed funds to maintain a navy and diplomatic corps to ensure trade and therefore imported goods had to be paid for."

Yet to put a tax on a luxury item specifically alcohol indicates if they had known have the danger involved with many drugs that where in common use by them they would have prohibited them. I'm not saying all would agree with prohibition but many would specifically I'm thinking of the Federalists, I have no idea why your arguing that they wouldn't given a need and opportunity. And this also hits another point the founders all I had different goals and thoughts, what do we do seek a majority opinion of dead men or instead should grade them on importance starting GW at the highest and work are way down.

"And what happens when the court fails to act (as it failed to do in Athens)?"

The courts never got the case and your using a local government conspiracy as an excuse for armed intervention against a tyrant which a local official can barely qualify for? He has little power and in this day and age more than any other time we have agencies investigating corruption of elected officials, elections, police, and laws. We have media covering these issues that would make the story front page news. Now to go back to the point where it's local corruption and decision making, if there was an armed riot every time corruption was sensed by the local populace there would be a riot in every small town county, you can't predict what would've happened given continued calls and problems associated with politics. I mean look at many southern towns that discriminated against black people given time and non-violent resistance they initiated change throughout the south. For every example of violent resistance to the US government in the past 100 years there are far more where non-violent resistance worked and where violence just made things worse.

"Negative. The illegal guns are from the Mexican military. There have been 250,000 desertions from the Mexican military in the past decade. Where American firearms come in is the fact that, as with most nations, the Mexican military uses American firearms."

Bullshit, "Mexicans have a constitutional right to own firearms,[1] but legal purchase from the single Mexican gun shop in Mexico City, controlled by the Army, is extremely difficult.[2] "According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."[3] Once guns are obtained at gunshops in the United States, they are then smuggled into Mexico across the US-Mexico border.[4][5] In other cases the guns are obtained through Guatemalan borders[6] or stolen from the police or military.[7] Consequently, black market firearms are widely available. Many firearms are acquired in the U.S. by women with no criminal history, who transfer their purchases to smugglers through relatives, boyfriends and acquaintances and then smuggled to Mexico a few at a time.[8] The most common smuggled firearms include AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles, and FN 5.7 caliber semi-automatic pistols. Many firearms are purchased in the United States in a semi-automatic configuration before being converted to fire as select fire machine guns.[9] Mexico seized in 2009 a combined total of more than 4,400 firearms of the AK-47 and AR-15 type, and 30% of AK-47 type rifles seized have been modified to select fire weapons, effectively creating assault rifles."

So 70% come from the US and specifically are smuggled across the border given that data. Now would curving legal assault weapons purchases in the US completely get rid of all weapons in mexico, nope but 70% seems like a decent amount and worth attempting to do something about. There would be a significant reduction in firearms in mexico if America tightened gun check restrictions and banned assault rifles.

"Mexican deserters are attacking and killing American civilians. To most, that is an invasion."

HAHA, i swear people on the border have a victim mentality. Crime rankings are as follows Arizona 6, New mexico 9, Texas 15. If These three states where really under invasion you think they'd have the highest violence rates in the country. Also included the largest amount of border violence is against...(your guessing american citizens) it's other illegal immigrants. And as I mention in the previous section most of the guns are from america, if you wanted to reduce the violence in border states you should probably get rid of the main source of weapons american gun stores and straw sales.

"What? American civilians in the 1700s had far more experience with firearms than virtually all of our modern police officers. 40 hours of training at the academy? Try a decade of shooting experience by the time you were 20.

Also, most citizens had an entire militia half and hours muster away."

I know I've been saying we shouldn't listen to the founders but I think George Washington and every revolutionary general would disagree with you on all counts.

"No, it is their opinion that we should follow the goddamn rule of law. You will not do anything because you actually have to do something. Sorry, but our system was set up so that you have to convince people. You are not supposed to just railroad your ideas through without any thought or reason."

Rule of law should be changed as time goes on. It's funny your so concerned about freedom and our constituion yet you tell a single person to make a change, you realize that completely defeats the purpose of democracy. And as I point out it's nearly impossible to change the constitution, unless of course you want to plan a heist where we steal the constitution and I cross out the second amendment and write in something a little more reasonable.

"Try harder and stop trying to destroy the rule of law."

How am I or anyone else threatening the rule of law, your the one that keeps suggesting one man perform all the change in the US.

"Have you ever considered the idea that maybe, just maybe, you are more in the minority than you think?"

55% of american agree with an assault weapon ban and unless their is some magic fucking deal made it will never pass. Does that not indicate some fucking problem with the system? And no it doesn't begin with gun control however it is a symptom of that ailing system, to further demonstrate my point look at congress's support numbers we should be able to change our system yet we won't for at least a couple more years(and even then it will probably be half-assed) despite having the most unpopular congress in polling history.

dmase:
No, the whiskey rebellion, everything related to the distillation of whiskey was from the US and George Washington agreed with it.

Which was done due to an emergency. As I stated.

Yet to put a tax on a luxury item specifically alcohol indicates if they had known have the danger involved with many drugs that where in common use by them they would have prohibited them.

You have no idea what you are talking about. They chose whiskey because they thought it would be the least objectionable.

I have no idea why your arguing that they wouldn't given a need and opportunity.

I said except in cases of emergency.

The courts never got the case

Yes they did. The Department of Justice investigated several times.

He has little power

A sheriff and a state Senator have little power?

in this day and age more than any other time we have agencies investigating corruption of elected officials, elections, police, and laws. We have media covering these issues that would make the story front page news.

Right- http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/13/allegations-of-corruption-fraud-tears-town-government-apart/

The corruption in that town has been going on for years.

if there was an armed riot every time corruption was sensed by the local populace

Sensed? Try, knew about and then rebelled after the government failed to stop it and they shot an innocent man.

"According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."

First of all, don't copy wiki articles and expect it to turn out well.

Second of all, from the US does not mean from US gun stores.

Third, those numbers are based upon what firearms the Mexicans sent back to the US. And what qualifies a firearm to be sent back to the US? If the Mexicans think the firearm came from the US.

So 70% come from the US and specifically are smuggled across the border given that data.

Lie.

BTW I did notice the fact that you did not read the whole article. What you looked at was a report from Senator Feinstein (you know, the person who keeps pushing the AWB). Here are some of the parts you missed-

HAHA, i swear people on the border have a victim mentality. Crime rankings are as follows Arizona 6, New mexico 9, Texas 15. If These three states where really under invasion you think they'd have the highest violence rates in the country.

So let me get this straight. The only way you see it as an invasion is if they kill a shit ton of people. Sorry, I actually care about people and I do not need a thousand dead to care.

I know I've been saying we shouldn't listen to the founders but I think George Washington and every revolutionary general would disagree with you on all counts.

In your opinion. However, you have not proved it.

Rule of law should be changed as time goes on.

But not ignored when you think it is inconvenient.

It's funny your so concerned about freedom and our constituion yet you tell a single person to make a change, you realize that completely defeats the purpose of democracy.

So you are the only one that wants those changes to be made? You cannot convince anyone else that the changes you want are necessary? Ok then, nothing you want will be passed. Sorry, if you are that hopelessly out of the loop then you do not stand a chance.

And as I point out it's nearly impossible to change the constitution

And yet it has been done several times.

How am I or anyone else threatening the rule of law

You want to ignore the law.

your the one that keeps suggesting one man perform all the change in the US.

Strawman. Looks like you are done.

55% of american agree with an assault weapon ban

Down from 62% a month ago. Looks like the support is losing ground.

Does that not indicate some fucking problem with the system?

Nope. If the bill cannot pass a month from now then it should not be passed.

If the Second Amendment should only apply to the types of weapons that existed in the late 18th century, then the government should be able to come onto any website and redact all posts and information that the administration disagrees with or thinks reflects negatively upon them. The FCC should be able to censor all radio and TV news to any degree they wish, taking anything and everything off the air completely at will. After all, the internet, radio and television didn't exist in the 1700's, so the First Amendment shouldn't apply. The Obama administration should be able to shut down Rush Limbaugh, Fox "News" and any other conservative media that is not printed on paper or shouted by someone on a street corner.

Americans and your god damned constitution. A constitution is not supposed to be the word of god and yours is nothing special. The early US has little in common with the current US. What was true then is not true now. You are an internally stable country with an hilariously bloated military complex. You are not a fledgling nation in which there is a very real risk that a president will just get rid of the whole democracy thing or just outright pronounce himself King and there is no risk that the Brits will reclaim you if you can not chase them away with your muskets.

Maybe it's time to scrap the constitution of 1787 and start working on the constitution of 2013? One that is suited to modern americans and built on compromise between various modern american political groups?

It shouldn't matter what the Framers thought or intended the Constitution to mean. They're dead. If you consider their opinion more important than the opinions of the people alive today, then you've got a funny idea of how democracy works.

farson135:
snipped

"You have no idea what you are talking about. They chose whiskey because they thought it would be the least objectionable."

Least objectionable because it was the most morally wrong.

"Yes they did. The Department of Justice investigated several times."

Investigation is not the same as going to court which is what every article on the subject says.

"A sheriff and a state Senator have little power?"

On a federal scale warranting a full national rebellion... ugh yeah.

"Right- http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/13/allegations-of-corruption-fraud-tears-town-government-apart/

The corruption in that town has been going on for years."

The very fact that there is an article defeats your own argument, situations like this get widespread attention then can't be continued. When your first response is to pull out your guns your tempting insanity in my opinion.

"First of all, don't copy wiki articles and expect it to turn out well.

Second of all, from the US does not mean from US gun stores.

Third, those numbers are based upon what firearms the Mexicans sent back to the US. And what qualifies a firearm to be sent back to the US? If the Mexicans think the firearm came from the US."

"The final OIG report, which was released on November 2010, concludes that because ATF has not been able to communicate the value of gun tracing to Mexican law enforcement officials, they are less likely to prioritize their efforts to obtain tracing information from seized crime guns and enter it into eTrace"-wiki

Not only that but the ATF isn't designed for taking stat data which is one thing that needs to be improved on, of course a nationa l gun registry is tantamount to a federal conspiracy to you I'm sure. Another thing the numbers come from the DOJ not the ATF. And finally i thought something was weird when numbers for 1 year worth of gun data where fucked up so I looked at some the references used in the section of wiki article YOU posted

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2009/05/07/115945-mexico-s-weapons-cache-stymies-tracing/

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

You see gun advocates latch on to this kind of information and say look their lieing when they don't explain why the information isn't accurate yet with accurate information the 90% might even be right. And do me a favor and look at that second article specifically the 3 parts at the bottom. They don't get weapons in mexico because their choice is limited and they are difficult to obtain, obtain from america, or get the heavy heavy arsenal which is also difficult to obtain. The only reliable way to keep guns flowing to mexico is to buy them in the US, there are no other sources.

"So let me get this straight. The only way you see it as an invasion is if they kill a shit ton of people. Sorry, I actually care about people and I do not need a thousand dead to care."

It's not an invasion, in fact if you decided to use your weapons against the invaders you'd be wounding or killing mostly innocent people looking for a better life. The danger problem your facing isn't illegal immigrants ready to kill you and yours its drugs along the border and not everyone is a gang member coming from mexico. You act like it's a warzone down there but it's much worse in other states that don't even have a border. You basically made up an invasion in your head unless you want to go with La Raza argument in which case don't other responding because I know there is no way I can change your mind.

"In your opinion. However, you have not proved it."

Watch the history channel a little, the entire beginning of the revolutionary war was fought with un disciplined bad shots that had to be drilled into shape by generals of the american army.

"...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative"
-George Washington failed attempt to repel a frontier indian invasion

"But not ignored when you think it is inconvenient"(concerning rule of law)

Where have I ignored rule of law or prescribe ignoring it? I say change it legally of course, and least acceptable method I'd be fine with changing would be a national referendum.

"So you are the only one that wants those changes to be made? You cannot convince anyone else that the changes you want are necessary? Ok then, nothing you want will be passed. Sorry, if you are that hopelessly out of the loop then you do not stand a chance."

Wow these pointless argumentative conversations are pissing me off. Already told you most americans think there needs to be a change, once again look at congress approval rating yet congress will not have a changed format any time soon. I give my examples of why the legislative process and constitution of america are broken or are breaking and instead of rebuttal you completely avoid the whole point. Misdirection if you want to call out logical fallacies.

"And yet it has been done several times"

how many times did I say modern or recent... had to be at least twice

"Strawman. Looks like you are done."

No worse than the strawman you used to provoke that statement.

"Down from 62% a month ago. Looks like the support is losing ground."

That 55% is for the assault weapon ban ONLY, I used the lowest number because I didn't want someone to say that wasn't the accurate number for an assault weapon ban. There isn't a change, that 55% is because a different question was asked. It's funny though the most controversial part of the fire arm law is still supported by a majority of americans. Which supports my statement that their is a will to change legislation at least and yet it will be backed up by 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government.(though the senate probably won't make it easy with the filibuster)

"Nope. If the bill cannot pass a month from now then it should not be passed"

It's all so hilarious, you think gridlock is how are government is supposed to work? Not to mention republicans don't get it yet, they are going to have to deal with this if they win the presidency in 2016. Payback's a bitch and the republicans are gonna get it, you know if the voting populous doesn't deny them the white house again in 2016 because they stopped all legislation for their entire term. Your party is facing an emboldened Obama this term as well, there are gonna be some fun battles in the coming year and remember we have campaigner and chief working round the clock to push his agenda not anymore lets work together, republicans lost that Obama last term when they could have used it to their advantage.

dmase:
Least objectionable because it was the most morally wrong.

Can you prove that is what they thought? Of course not. They did not find the drinking of whiskey morally wrong they figured that the majority population in the east would not care and the only people that would is the minority population in the west.

Investigation is not the same as going to court which is what every article on the subject says.

But it has the same effect. The DOJ will not act.

On a federal scale warranting a full national rebellion... ugh yeah.

Strawman. A rebellion is a rebellion.

The very fact that there is an article defeats your own argument, situations like this get widespread attention then can't be continued.

Widespread attention? Have you ever heard of this town?

I have heard of it because I am a part of the right circles. Most people have never heard of it.

Not only that but the ATF isn't designed for taking stat data which is one thing that needs to be improved on

So in other words you admit the fact that you were pulling that shit out of your ass.

Another thing the numbers come from the DOJ not the ATF.

The AFT is a part of the DOJ.

You see gun advocates latch on to this kind of information and say look their lieing when they don't explain why the information isn't accurate yet with accurate information the 90% might even be right.

Might?

YOU stated unequivocally that we American must surrender our right to keep and bear arms so that arms do not flow into Mexico. I can prove easily that the Mexicans are not telling anywhere near the entire story. And I can prove that the Mexicans are losing massive numbers of troops to desertions. What can you prove? Jack shit.

And do me a favor and look at that second article specifically the 3 parts at the bottom. They don't get weapons in mexico because their choice is limited and they are difficult to obtain, obtain from america, or get the heavy heavy arsenal which is also difficult to obtain. The only reliable way to keep guns flowing to mexico is to buy them in the US, there are no other sources.

I already covered this. The Mexican military has had 250,000 desertions in the past decade. The Mexican military uses American made firearms INCLUDING the Barrett M82 (mentioned in the articles YOU posted).

It's not an invasion

Invasion- An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

in fact if you decided to use your weapons against the invaders you'd be wounding or killing mostly innocent people looking for a better life. The danger problem your facing isn't illegal immigrants ready to kill you and yours its drugs along the border and not everyone is a gang member coming from mexico.

Strawman. I never once mentioned illegal immigration and you damn well know it. Stop making shit up.

You basically made up an invasion in your head

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War#U.S._death_toll_and_national_security

Watch the history channel a little

I prefer books.

the entire beginning of the revolutionary war was fought with un disciplined bad shots that had to be drilled into shape by generals of the american army.

Prove it.

"...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative"
-George Washington failed attempt to repel a frontier indian invasion

So you have a lack of discipline. Nothing about shooting skill.

Where have I ignored rule of law or prescribe ignoring it?

Every time you try and make a federal gun law.

Already told you most americans think there needs to be a change

Everybody always thinks there needs to be a change. The people who want things to stay exactly as they are now are always in the minority. Your statement is irrelevant.

I give my examples of why the legislative process and constitution of america are broken or are breaking and instead of rebuttal you completely avoid the whole point.

Your points are irrelevant. Notice something. Congress always has low approval ratings. Individual congress members in their own districts tend to be more popular.

how many times did I say modern or recent... had to be at least twice

The 16th-27th Amendments have all been passed in the past century. That is modern history.

That 55% is for the assault weapon ban ONLY

That 62% was also for the AWB only. You are losing ground rapidly.

There isn't a change, that 55% is because a different question was asked.

Prove it.

It's funny though the most controversial part of the fire arm law is still supported by a majority of americans.

Prove it.

you think gridlock is how are government is supposed to work?

Strawman. Let me put it to you simply, emotional reactionism is no way to run a country.

Your party

My party? Do you even know what my party is? Of course not, you have your bias and you do not give a shit about the truth. My Democratic state Senator voted in favor of Concealed Carry on Campus and has an A rating from the NRA. Many Democrats have A ratings from the NRA.

As for myself, I am a Libertarian.

farson135:
snipped

"Can you prove that is what they thought? Of course not. They did not find the drinking of whiskey morally wrong they figured that the majority population in the east would not care and the only people that would is the minority population in the west."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889187,00.html

And no that's not an isolated source there are others, it was meant to be a sin tax.

"But it has the same effect. The DOJ will not act."

Will not act and would not act are two separate things, you can't predict what would have happened had other sources been contacted. Now you still haven't addressed why peaceful protest couldn't be used like minorities did throughout the country, or do you think the bloodshed of armed rebellion would have gained there rights quicker?

"Strawman. A rebellion is a rebellion."

learn to use the word correctly if your going to keep using it, "a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

Or maybe I should have called strawman when you brought up a local rebellion because I was talking about rebellion against the federal government. Don't let listing logical fallacies get in the way of actually answer a topic that you decided to wade head first in to with something besides the pro gun stand by story.

"Widespread attention? Have you ever heard of this town?

I have heard of it because I am a part of the right circles. Most people have never heard of it."

No, but that's probably because it happened in 1946, and those circles are probably the same ones listed on the wiki page, "The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny"

Grasping at straws is what means because they are afraid to bring up the other rebellions like the civil war, whiskey rebellion, race riots etc where the final outcome was fucking horrofic for everyone involved and ended up preventing change instead of supporting it. Now once again tell me how armed rebellion is so much better than peaceful protest in our society.

All things related to statistics where taken from the ATF correct but one thing that needs to be implemented in gun legislation is a national registry. and "pulled that shit out my ass" no, if they had a national gun database they'd be able to make accurate tracing abilities for all weapon and if they had more employees they could actually accomplish this without looking through municipalities records and shoddy records of gun store owners who once again don't HAVE to keep their records. So are they set up to take statistical data no, and the next articles I posted go into deep detail of why.

"Might?

YOU stated unequivocally that we American must surrender our right to keep and bear arms so that arms do not flow into Mexico. I can prove easily that the Mexicans are not telling anywhere near the entire story. And I can prove that the Mexicans are losing massive numbers of troops to desertions. What can you prove? Jack shit."

Read my last two articles where it explicitly states there are ONLY three avenues to gain weapons and the easiest are straw purchases in the US. No only that but it states that most other weapons couldn't be tracked because the serial numbers where rubbed off. You choose to avoid what you see because it will hurt you, it's not like it takes some Sherlock Holmes jump in logic to explain this or maybe critical thinking skills isn't your strong suit. Now the article I gave to you earlier said that most of the weapons in mexico from the drug cartels couldn't be traced... well they'd be able to trace their goddamn service rifles if they couldn't trace anything else because they are using

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_rifle#Mexico

And the lists are ar-15, ak-47, and the of course handguns which will make up most of the mexican illegal gun market. Where are those g36's or fx-05's? The mexican army would immiedtaly no if that where the cartels main source of weapons, it's not however.

"Prove it."

well take your own advice and

"I prefer books."

read a fucking book

"So you have a lack of discipline. Nothing about shooting skill."

Come on man you just said there was a militia around the corener at any moment ready to take care of indians crooks and yet I give a fucking quote from george fucking washington and your refutation is well they could shoot. My reply well they couldn't stop that indian invasion you where talking about could they? There shooting skill is completely fucking irrelevant.

"Every time you try and make a federal gun law."

The supreme court would disagree with you, you remember the assault weapons ban, not unconstitutional.

"Everybody always thinks there needs to be a change. The people who want things to stay exactly as they are now are always in the minority. Your statement is irrelevant."

Just showed you using statistics that gun control isn't in the minority, I'm keep going back to the logic problem you seem to have. i'm already a pretty verbose typer I don't think I could explain how public opinion polls work to you and continue this conversation, that would just be exhausting.

"Your points are irrelevant. Notice something. Congress always has low approval ratings. Individual congress members in their own districts tend to be more popular."

Congratulations you found another flaw in the system.

"The 16th-27th Amendments have all been passed in the past century. That is modern history."

It's funny you know what I meant and yet you avoided it. I mean the past 10 years... well mainly lets just go with since the beginning of the Obama administration.

"That 62% was also for the AWB only. You are losing ground rapidly."

What was that word you kept throwing out... oh prove it. But you see when I say it I don't think it's false I just want to see the poll since your contributing no new information to this thread or this conversation your just talking in circles to avoid the reality that maybe gun control isn't complete shit all the goddamn time.

"Prove it."

Wait what... does not compute. You throw out a poll number that's 62 and I throw out a number as 55 and you want me to prove that a different question was asked between the polls when I only have one... you have the other you could have proved me wrong right then and there so use some damn logic and prove me wrong instead of making me type some goddamn rebuttal.

"Prove it."

the current poll says 55% support for automatic weapons

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/support-for-gun-control-has-dropped-in-recent-years/

Towards the end of the article, 2009 rates where at 54% for an assault weapons ban.

"Strawman. Let me put it to you simply, emotional reactionism is no way to run a country."

thats funny coming from a conservative.

" Do you even know what my party is? "

Republican, Libertarian, Tea, Do I give a shit?

"Of course not"

Hey answered your question and mine yesss.

"you have your bias and you do not give a shit about the truth"

That is fucking hilarious coming from you. If i'm guilty of willful ignorance you are just as much.

dmase:
And no that's not an isolated source there are others, it was meant to be a sin tax.

It being a sin tax does not prove your point. YOU said that they found it morally objectionable to drink whiskey. You also said that they would have been willing to ban whiskey sales completely. You have proved neither point.

Will not act and would not act are two separate things, you can't predict what would have happened had other sources been contacted.

What other sources?

Now you still haven't addressed why peaceful protest couldn't be used like minorities did throughout the country

A peaceful protest was used. After it failed the citizens reacted. Plus, since you do not seem to remember your civil rights history, there was this incident where force was used-

image

do you think the bloodshed of armed rebellion would have gained there rights quicker?

It gained the rights of the citizens of McMinn County quicker. Violence was used by minorities to gain rights and after MLK basically said, you can deal with us or them, the government backed off.

Anyway, not every situation requires the same hand.

learn to use the word correctly if your going to keep using it

Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you.

Also, please type slower. I can barely understand what you are saying.

Or maybe I should have called strawman when you brought up a local rebellion because I was talking about rebellion against the federal government

Because only rebellions can happen against the feds? Just because a different factor is inconvenient for me to mention does not make it a strawman.

No, but that's probably because it happened in 1946

Pay attention. I was talking about Quartzsite.

Now once again tell me how armed rebellion is so much better than peaceful protest in our society.

Peaceful protests do not always give you the results you want.

no, if they had a national gun database they'd be able to make accurate tracing abilities for all weapon and if they had more employees they could actually accomplish this without looking through municipalities records and shoddy records of gun store owners who once again don't HAVE to keep their records.

Fail. Big motherfucking fail. You have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Do you know why all guns have serial numbers? It is so that they can be traced. The ATF can trace guns that are made and at least their first ship location without even trying. That info is readily available.

Read my last two articles where it explicitly states there are ONLY three avenues to gain weapons and the easiest are straw purchases in the US.

Actually neither of your articles say that. They say, from the US companies. Problem, the Mexican police and military use American made firearms.

No only that but it states that most other weapons couldn't be tracked because the serial numbers where rubbed off.

Which would not be a problem if the firearms were obviously American. I do not give a shit if the serial numbers are rubbed off, a Remington 700 is a Remington 700. However, an AK-47 can come from god knows where. Usually such guns come from South America.

You choose to avoid what you see because it will hurt you

Funny, I was about the say the same about you.

Now the article I gave to you earlier said that most of the weapons in mexico from the drug cartels couldn't be traced

No it did not say that. It said that Mexico is not releasing a majority of the firearms.

Quoting from your article-

According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

"Prove it."

well take your own advice and

"I prefer books."

read a fucking book

Would you care to recommend one? Of course not.

Come on man you just said there was a militia around the corener at any moment ready to take care of indians crooks

Strawman. Stop making shit up.

My reply well they couldn't stop that indian invasion you where talking about could they?

They did stop the invasion.

There shooting skill is completely fucking irrelevant.

Then why did you mention it?

Just showed you using statistics that gun control isn't in the minority

For now. Give it a few months and everything will even out again.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnntime-poll-slight-dip-in-support-for-gun-control-measures-in-last-month/

Congratulations you found another flaw in the system.

That is not a flaw in the system it is a flaw with human behavior.

It's funny you know what I meant and yet you avoided it. I mean the past 10 years... well mainly lets just go with since the beginning of the Obama administration.

You expect the laws that make up the very fabric of our government to change every decade? Can you name any government in history that has not been in a state of flux that has managed the successfully?

What was that word you kept throwing out... oh prove it.

That is two words genius.

Do I really need to show you how 55 is less than 62?

But you see when I say it I don't think it's false I just want to see the poll since your contributing no new information to this thread

I am contributing no new information? You have yet to prove a single one of your points.

BTW if you wanted to see the poll just fucking ask. It is the above source.

or this conversation your just talking in circles to avoid the reality that maybe gun control isn't complete shit all the goddamn time.

Strawman. Just most of the time for most of the people.

Wait what... does not compute. You throw out a poll number that's 62 and I throw out a number as 55 and you want me to prove that a different question was asked between the polls when I only have one... you have the other you could have proved me wrong right then and there so use some damn logic and prove me wrong instead of making me type some goddamn rebuttal.

First of all, you never gave me the poll you mentioned. However, I assume it is the CNN poll and it is the same goddamn poll as what I am using.

the current poll says 55% support for automatic weapons

And here is another poll- http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-51-percent-dont-want-gun-ban-85512.html

You put far too much into polls.

thats funny coming from a conservative.

I am a conservative? Since when?

Oh wait, that is your effort to dehumanize me by shoving me into a group. Cleaver (/sarcasm)

Republican, Libertarian, Tea, Do I give a shit?

Apparently since you brought it up.

That is fucking hilarious coming from you. If i'm guilty of willful ignorance you are just as much.

How so? You have identified me with a group that I have no affiliation with on the basis of your own bias. I have not identified you with any group.

farson135:
snipped

"It being a sin tax does not prove your point. YOU said that they found it morally objectionable to drink whiskey. You also said that they would have been willing to ban whiskey sales completely. You have proved neither point."

So you realize it's a sin tax and now choose to move the goal posts.

"What other sources?"

governor, media, state officials, other law enforcement agencies

"A peaceful protest was used. After it failed the citizens reacted. Plus, since you do not seem to remember your civil rights history, there was this incident where force was used-"

Force used by the federal government, I don't see how your making an actual point

"t gained the rights of the citizens of McMinn County quicker. Violence was used by minorities to gain rights and after MLK basically said, you can deal with us or them, the government backed off.

Anyway, not every situation requires the same hand."

Yet you have one example where force was used effectively by a populous and I have numerous... like the ones I listed.

"Also, please type slower. I can barely understand what you are saying."

Yeah I've decided one sentences responses save me time and brain power I see why you where doing them.

"Because only rebellions can happen against the feds? Just because a different factor is inconvenient for me to mention does not make it a strawman."

You can continue to call things strawman to which I'll call the same thing to you or you can cut to the issue

ctrl+f quartzsite reveals nothing and I see no links related to it what are you talking about.

"Peaceful protests do not always give you the results you want."

You keep avoiding the statement, there are far more examples where it works vs where armed rebellion works

"Fail. Big motherfucking fail. You have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Do you know why all guns have serial numbers? It is so that they can be traced. The ATF can trace guns that are made and at least their first ship location without even trying. That info is readily available."

Fail, big motherfucking fail. There is no national gun registry data and the data can't track the weapons most of the time because shops don't have to report who they sold the weapons to and from and where. Not only that but the ATF doesn't have access to the only unified serial number record held by the companies.

"Actually neither of your articles say that. They say, from the US companies. Problem, the Mexican police and military use American made firearms."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

Three avenues, two of them difficult those from the military and those from the mexican gun stores. The ones from mexican gun stores are hard to access. And the reason they aren't mostly from the mexican or american military is because of the type of weapons they are.

"Which would not be a problem if the firearms were obviously American. I do not give a shit if the serial numbers are rubbed off, a Remington 700 is a Remington 700. However, an AK-47 can come from god knows where. Usually such guns come from South America."

Given the above article we know where it's coming from, those three avenues. Now another point most of the South America gets weapons from america and they have very strict gun restrictions

http://www.as-coa.org/articles/explainer-gun-laws-latin-america%E2%80%99s-six-largest-economies

"Strawman. Stop making shit up."

I just gave a good example of why militia's where bullshit and the only reason your not excepting that is because it doesn't fit your point of you view. You tried drawing a comparison saying colonials where safe if not safer with a militia then our shitty police officers and you failed. Now if you don't mind stop rewriting history because it isn't what you imagine as the idealistic founding of america.

"They did stop the invasion."
After there well disciplined militia didn't answer the call washington had for protecting the english colony with far more deaths should have had by a regular army vs a militia. Honestly I don't know, I don't even know which invasion to look for but i will tell you this our police are more reliable than the militia you want to be ready in american history and in history in general which is why we have police officers and not militia. So my original point is we have police for protection in cases of danger as you said 30 minutes away(or 10 I have a hard time keeping track of the changes your making to your points) or we could have a militia who arrives an hour and half later(your words I won't even judge correctness) and are obviously unreliable in combat according to George washington.(which is my point not anything about shooting)

"Then why did you mention it(shooting)?"

Actually you did every time in this forum, I just ctrl-f was either me quoting you or you saying it. You can't even keep track of what you say

"For now. Give it a few months and everything will even out again."

As presented later in the post you quoted it hovers around and above 50% of the general populace.

"That is not a flaw in the system it is a flaw with human behavior."

You really can't agree with me on anything could you... actually is the exact same scenario as what we where just talking about. Why is congress approval lower than individul reps? Because the reps don't choose to go down the middle and as of now obstruct legislation even if it makes sense somethingthat could be fixed by modifying the system at which point congress's approval rating might get in the upper 30's.*thumbs up*

"You expect the laws that make up the very fabric of our government to change every decade? Can you name any government in history that has not been in a state of flux that has managed the successfully?"

No just once every 200 years, we rewrite the constitution, I don't think that's asking too much is it?

"That is two words genius.

Do I really need to show you how 55 is less than 62?"

Oh my god my IQ is so low, I'm such a fucking dumbass, given my obvious spelling and grammatical errors I so care about that.

I meant a source, which after the politicking poll you posted I can see that. So I don't know if I should thank you for giving me the poll I asked for(even though you didn't mean to) or call you a dumb ass for not understanding what I meant by saying prove it, I mean if you had read through my post you know I wanted a source for that that 62%.

"I am contributing no new information? You have yet to prove a single one of your points.

BTW if you wanted to see the poll just fucking ask. It is the above source."

Yes, I did you just happen to disagree with EVERY single one of them mostly by not proving me wrong or by giving alternative evidence but by saying no that doesn't count or by moving the goal posts.

I did, and I also said thank you or called you a dumbass take your pick i've got room for a couple more warnings on my escapist health bar.

"Strawman. Just most of the time for most of the people."

Not everything I say is meant to be a point that is argued in fact I've been slowly adding more insecurity in my post because I'm tired of arguing with you. Also that right there shows there is no point in actually arguing with you, online arguments am I right?

"First of all, you never gave me the poll you mentioned. However, I assume it is the CNN poll and it is the same goddamn poll as what I am using."

Polls taken a different times, I wanted to ensure we where talking about the same thing in regards to polls btw.

"And here is another poll- http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-51-percent-dont-want-gun-ban-85512.html

You put far too much into polls."

Fine with me the important part of the legislation is the background check in my opinion. Depending on their quality polls tell you a lot about what's possible and what isn't. Of course I'm looking at the date of that poll and I remember why I don't like gallup, it was taken mid decemeber the same time CNN got that 62% figure. I won't give an explanation as to why because you would of course need to refute something purely meant to be a statement.

"I am a conservative? Since when?

Oh wait, that is your effort to dehumanize me by shoving me into a group. Cleaver (/sarcasm)"

I'm looking at a computer screen reading your words and thinking you have less and less of a point as we go, I don't need to dehumanize you any further. Also people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

"How so? You have identified me with a group that I have no affiliation with on the basis of your own bias. I have not identified you with any group."

Are you a Hippster? You talk like a hipster, "I'm so outside of the mainstream I'm a stagnant pond." Or some such nonsense. But ok to make you feel better about it all, I'm sorry correct every part where conservative, republican, or them is used with "gun advocate". Politically correct enough for you?(admit it you laughed)

dmase:
So you realize it's a sin tax and now choose to move the goal posts.

You are the one who moved the goal posts.

governor, media, state officials, other law enforcement agencies

The last two were contacted. Media was not like it is today and they were in the middle of a war. The government felt it had more important things to deal with.

Force used by the federal government, I don't see how your making an actual point

You claim that force is not justified to make a political end.

Yet you have one example where force was used effectively by a populous and I have numerous... like the ones I listed.

You did not list a single example. I have listed several.

quartzsite reveals nothing and I see no links related to it what are you talking about.

Pay attention. I have been talking about it since post 39- http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/13/allegations-of-corruption-fraud-tears-town-government-apart/

You keep avoiding the statement, there are far more examples where it works vs where armed rebellion works

Really? Like what?

There is no national gun registry data and the data can't track the weapons most of the time because shops don't have to report who they sold the weapons to and from and where.

Irrelevant. YOUR point was that we cannot figure out if the firearm came from the US because there is no national gun registry. We do not need one because the ATF tracks guns when they are made and initially sold.

Three avenues, two of them difficult those from the military and those from the mexican gun stores.

Not difficult. Your article never said difficult. And given the fact that 250,000 soldiers have deserted from the Mexican military it is very easy to see how they get those firearms.

Given the above article we know where it's coming from, those three avenues. Now another point most of the South America gets weapons from america and they have very strict gun restrictions

Let us look at your article again-

A close examination of the arms seized from the enforcer groups and their training camps clearly demonstrates this trend toward military ordnance, including many weapons not readily available in the United States. Some of these seizures have included M60 machine guns and hundreds of 40 mm grenades obtained from the military arsenals of countries like Guatemala.

Why don't you try reading your sources before you post them?

I just gave a good example of why militia's where bullshit and the only reason your not excepting that is because it doesn't fit your point of you view.

Let us see, I said that the militia is about hours muster away. I also said that militiamen were good marksmen. You have refuted neither point.

You tried drawing a comparison saying colonials where safe if not safer with a militia then our shitty police officers and you failed.

Did I say that? Please show me exactly where I said that. More strawman arguments.

I don't know, I don't even know which invasion to look for

And yet you insult me.

as you said 30 minutes away(or 10 I have a hard time keeping track of the changes your making to your points)

Maybe if you paid attention you would remember the fact that 10 minutes is the average in a city but it would take 30 minutes to get to my friends farm from town.

and are obviously unreliable in combat according to George washington.

A soldier does not like the undisciplined actions of a militia. Not unusual but it does not change a militias usefulness.

(which is my point not anything about shooting)

Then why did you make a point about shooting prowess?

Actually you did every time in this forum, I just ctrl-f was either me quoting you or you saying it. You can't even keep track of what you say

No you said it.

Post 38 you said Washington would disagree with me about their shooting skills, you said they were bad shots in post #43, and then you denied it in your next post. Try and keep up.

You really can't agree with me on anything could you... actually is the exact same scenario as what we where just talking about. Why is congress approval lower than individul reps? Because the reps don't choose to go down the middle and as of now obstruct legislation even if it makes sense somethingthat could be fixed by modifying the system at which point congress's approval rating might get in the upper 30's.*thumbs up*

This is why you need to slow the fuck down. What you said makes absolutely no sense.

I will say this, individuals are better liked than an amorphous entity. That is human nature.

No just once every 200 years, we rewrite the constitution, I don't think that's asking too much is it?

Why? Why do we need to change the entire framework of our government when our government functions?

Not everything I say is meant to be a point that is argued in fact I've been slowly adding more insecurity in my post because I'm tired of arguing with you.

So you are making shit up because you have nothing of value to add. Then just stop posting. Your ramblings are convincing no one.

Polls taken a different times

Which proves that your support is waning.

Also people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

How have I dehumanized you?

Are you a Hippster? You talk like a hipster, "I'm so outside of the mainstream I'm a stagnant pond." Or some such nonsense.

Did I say that? Or did I say that I am not a part of the group that you want to lump me into? Sorry, there is far more to this world than just Conservatives and whatever it is you are.

Politically correct enough for you?(admit it you laughed)

Fraid I didn't laugh. It is not about political correctness. It is about intelligent discussion. Just lumping me together with a bunch of random people makes my views less my own and more that of an amorphous entity. Hence, why I prefer my views to be viewed as my own.

farson135:
snipped

"You are the one who moved the goal posts."

Whatever your wrong and instead of just letting it go you continue to post so I'll look for another source.

http://obsdailyviews.blogspot.com/2012/07/scalia-surprise-some-guns-can-be-banned.html

scalia a good enough source?

"The last two were contacted. Media was not like it is today and they were in the middle of a war. The government felt it had more important things to deal with."

Considering how little there is on the incident I'd say give me proof. The media after hearing about the fighting rushed to the scene but they could have gained the same amount of uproar using nonviolent protest which you say they did and the only proof there is is poll watching by several former GI's. You have a whole county that could have decided to join in. And What I found is that once Eleanor Roosevelt heard of the revolt she supported the rebels, could there have been a way to contact other reports yes, yet they didn't.

"You claim that force is not justified to make a political end."

No, that was never my point, I think I see the disconnect now, you are thinking that i'm applying some simple non-violent hippie ideals. I'm not. My point is in our current set up with excsive checks and balances government corruption can be fixed using non-violent protest by the populace and that change can be enacted in our government without people bearing arms to prevent tyranny. Don't believe me look at my first two posts in this thread. The point being the second amendment was supposed to be a defense against a tryannical federal government and we don't have to worry about that anymore. There is a smooth transition between political leaders and not someone seeking to over ride the powers bestowed to them, if the supreme court where to say no to any legislative action or presidential deceleration it would be followed to the letter. We are a stable country that doesn't need a populace to rise up against it's leaders.

"You did not list a single example. I have listed several."

I assumed you wouldn't be so fucking dickish that you couldn't use your own knowledge to figure out which ones I was talking about.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/civilrights/section4.rhtml

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887394_1861256,00.html

Some small examples but there are many others.

"Pay attention. I have been talking about it since post 39- http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/13/allegations-of-corruption-fraud-tears-town-government-apart/"

I thought this had been adequately addressed, the official is going to be under investigation, it says so in your article. Also this is fucking ridiculous why are you using this again? Your proving my point this jennifer later has basically put that town on the map using... you guessed it non violent protest. The system works. THis does nothing to bolster the need for civilian firearms to overthrow a local government. I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist I'm saying citizens don't need to use violence to stop it.

"Irrelevant. YOUR point was that we cannot figure out if the firearm came from the US because there is no national gun registry. We do not need one because the ATF tracks guns when they are made and initially sold."

No they don't the ATF has no idea where straw purchase guns go, thy also don't know who the guns where sold to, and the shoddy reporting data kept by stores makes it so many guns are lost. For an example look at this thread, http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.398792-Jon-Stewart-Explains-the-ATF-Why-Were-Unable-to-Enforce-Current-Gun-Laws

All of the information is correct in Jon Stewarts videos as well.

"Really? Like what?"

You either don't know anything or you using willful ignorance either way that shows how weak your argument for needing guns against tyrants is. So some examples where violent civilian uprising didn't work. The civil war, that didn't work out very well for the rebels and their guns. The Riots insert city here. The post Katrina riots. The union-mobster effort. The whiskey rebellion.

"Not difficult. Your article never said difficult. And given the fact that 250,000 soldiers have deserted from the Mexican military it is very easy to see how they get those firearms."

If those guns came from the mexican military the mexican would know this because mexican service rifles are used but instead the weapons used are ones sold by legal gun stores in america. The mexican army doesn't use AK's Or AR's Or the cop killer hand guns however they are sold in america.

"Why don't you try reading your sources before you post them?"

It's a trend meaning it's moving that way, there is an increase in those ordinances used however they are not as common place as your rank and file handguns, ak's, and AR's all things coming from america.

"Let us see, I said that the militia is about hours muster away. I also said that militiamen were good marksmen. You have refuted neither point."

There you go moving the goal posts again. First George washington in attempt to repel an indian invasion failed because he could not muster the militia I gave you that quote remember? And the militia men where good marksmen is irrelevant if they won't stand in face an enemy. your being argumentative for the sake of argument, their militia was useless because they didn't have any discipline and as seen in the revolutionary war would often run at the sight of red coats. That is a useless fucking militia but if you want to say they where good marksmen I don't give a fuck that is not the point i was trying to make, if they could replace modern day police men is what I was trying to prove false.

"Did I say that? Please show me exactly where I said that. More strawman arguments."

Of my original comment that we are safer now then ever with policemen 10 or 30 minutes away(your numbers) is worse then have a militia 30 minutes away also your numbers. You decided to go off on a tangent about shooting I instead stayed on the matter at hand proving whether or not a militia could replace a police man. If you want to go off on a tangent about shooting skill I won't be part of it because it's irrelavent to this thread and my posts as I've stated multiple times.

"And yet you insult me."

Please give me what indian battle it was or do you not want to provide more than one sentence responses?

"A soldier does not like the undisciplined actions of a militia. Not unusual but it does not change a militias usefulness."

Over a police man? No, now get off the shooting bit because you are keeping this tangent going off my one comment about handling a weapon.

"Then why did you make a point about shooting prowess?"

I didn't you did

"No you said it.

Post 38 you said Washington would disagree with me about their shooting skills, you said they were bad shots in post #43, and then you denied it in your next post. Try and keep up."

Fine lets go ahead and switch this around I said cops where superior to militia you said they where superior to cops with fire power. You wanna continue with this tangent you prove it, i've already proved how the militia's where undisciplined and next to useless until they got proper military training which is the only thing that matters in the realm of these debate. Oh wait let me call it. If you want to misdirect me then you can go ahead keep the burden of proof to yourself.

"This is why you need to slow the fuck down. What you said makes absolutely no sense.

I will say this, individuals are better liked than an amorphous entity. That is human nature."

The system needs to be changed because we have a congress that doesn't work and that's why people don't like it. Why doesn't it work, because despite a majority in the senate and an almost 45 55 percent split in the house nothing can be passed because of stalling tactics. And despite significant public approval for certain pieces of legislation they don't get passed they get blocked. There is a fundamental problem with congress brought on in recent years and now it needs to be addressed.

"Why? Why do we need to change the entire framework of our government when our government functions?"

I take it your happy with the intense grid lock on capital hill?

"So you are making shit up because you have nothing of value to add. Then just stop posting. Your ramblings are convincing no one."

None of what I've said has been made up and i've sourced everything per your request but most of the time just because. You have contributed nothing useful and instead want to get side tracked by something like shooting prowess of a police officer vs the continental militia. How is that even relevant to the second amendment and it's something you decided to latch on to because you know replacing police officers with militia would be a bad idea and obvious failure.

"Which proves that your support is waning."

Like I stated it doesn't really matter that much if assault weapons ban doesn't pass things like the universal background checks and improving the ATF are most important ones and they have much stronger support. Background checks are in the 80's I believe.

"How have I dehumanized you?"

Constant barbs and seeming disinterest in actually putting effort into a post. 1 sentence answers for everything with me providing the brunt of all the evidence without counter evidence. That and of course throwing me the gun control crowd in general I have views that are very explicit. Especially when you went on that little me wanting to deny your liberties rant.

dmase:
Whatever your wrong and instead of just letting it go you continue to post so I'll look for another source.

What in the fuck are you talking about? You have not proven that the founders would have been fine with banning alcohol. Stop moving the fucking goal posts.

Considering how little there is on the incident I'd say give me proof.

Try reading about it- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn_County_War

The media after hearing about the fighting rushed to the scene but they could have gained the same amount of uproar using nonviolent protest

Prove it.

which you say they did and the only proof there is is poll watching by several former GI's.

No, there were reports, people spoke out, and finally the GIs ran for office. You know damn well they did something because the DOJ investigated.

You have a whole county that could have decided to join in.

But didn't care until the fighting broke out.

My point is in our current set up with excsive checks and balances government corruption can be fixed using non-violent protest by the populace and that change can be enacted in our government without people bearing arms to prevent tyranny.

Prove it.

Don't believe me look at my first two posts in this thread.

You mean the posts that I ripped apart.

The point being the second amendment was supposed to be a defense against a tryannical federal government and we don't have to worry about that anymore.

Quartzsite says you are fucking wrong.

We are a stable country that doesn't need a populace to rise up against it's leaders.

In your opinion. However, you never have been and never will the majority.

I assumed you wouldn't be so fucking dickish that you couldn't use your own knowledge to figure out which ones I was talking about.

Sorry, you proved nothing.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/civilrights/section4.rhtml

Contained many violent elements. You should try doing a bit of research on the CRM before you post on it.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887394_1861256,00.html

Let us see what these events accomplished aside from making good sound bites and pictures-
.................... Nada.

Plus many of those events were tinged with violence.

Some small examples but there are many others.

You best present them.

the official is going to be under investigation, it says so in your article.

Yeah, investigation. You know what has come of it? Jack.

Also this is fucking ridiculous why are you using this again?

Because you addressed it again. Pay attention to what you are fucking quoting.

Your proving my point this jennifer later has basically put that town on the map using... you guessed it non violent protest.

Once again, you have never heard of this town. The only reason you know about it is because I told you a year after the event. On the map my ass.

No they don't the ATF has no idea where straw purchase guns go

STOP.....changing.....the......FUCKING......argument.

YOU argued that the ATF cannot trace guns that are from the US. That is fucking wrong. Stop fucking around.

thy also don't know who the guns where sold to

Yes they do. There are records of where the guns were shipped to and then you have records from shop owners.

and the shoddy reporting data kept by stores makes it so many guns are lost.

That is a fucking lie. I am an FFL holder. If I do what you are claiming I go to jail. You are fucking lying and you have no idea what you are talking about.

The civil war, that didn't work out very well for the rebels and their guns.

I assume you mean the American Civil War. Guess what, no one won that war. In fact the whole incident lead to massive upheavals in American society. Learn your history.

The Riots insert city here. The post Katrina riots. The union-mobster effort. The whiskey rebellion.

All of them accomplished something. They got people's attention.

If those guns came from the mexican military the mexican would know this because mexican service rifles are used

Yes they would. That is why the vast majority of the firearms in Mexican hands are not being sent back to the US.

but instead the weapons used are ones sold by legal gun stores in america.

Prove it.

The mexican army doesn't use AK's Or AR's

The Mexican army does use the military versions of the AR-15. And the AKs are generally coming from South America.

Or the cop killer hand guns however they are sold in america.

Cop killer handguns? You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, the primary pistols used by the Mexican military and police forces are all American made.

It's a trend meaning it's moving that way, there is an increase in those ordinances used however they are not as common place as your rank and file handguns, ak's, and AR's all things coming from america.

Prove it.

Let us look at a bust by the Mexican police-

image

Grenades, short barreled rifles, and grenade launchers. All tightly controlled in the US but widely available to the Mexican military and police. The only firearms that can be easily gotten in the US are the bolt action rifles but you can also get those in Mexico (in fact the Mexican army uses the Winchester 54 as its primary sniper rifle). Also, notice all of the bullet proof vests that have FEDA on them? Yeah, those were stolen from guess who and then restitched by the cartel.

What else-

image

Anti-material rifles like what the Mexican military uses. Grenade Launchers, P90s (like what the Mexican military uses), oh look FX-05s, AK-74s (illegal in the US), pump action shotguns (can be gotten in Mexico and used by the Mexican military), what looks like a few G3s (used by the Mexican military some years ago), HK MP5s (like what the Mexican military uses), Desert Eagle pistols (available in the US but popular all over the world), Beretta m9s (used by the Mexican military), m1911s (used by the Mexican military), USP .45s (used by the Mexican military), plus lots of grenades. In fact the only firearm in that picture that probably came from the US is that m14 but it could have been used as a squad designated marksmen firearm (the US still uses the m14 that way).

image

AK47s as far as the eye can see and not a single American refurbished one among them (as far as I can tell).

If you want more, here are Mexican Marines carrying M16s-

image

More Mexican soldiers-

image

Here are some Mexican soldiers carrying the Barrett M82-

image

Mexican with an m1911-

image

MP5s aplenty-

image

I can do this all day.

There you go moving the goal posts again.

I moved the goal posts? Do you really believe the shit you are shoveling?

First George washington in attempt to repel an indian invasion failed because he could not muster the militia I gave you that quote remember?

No, the civil authorities did not want the militia to muster for him. It says nothing about speed. Also, I noticed the fact that you said I was changing the goal posts and then admitted to trying to answer my earlier question.

And the militia men where good marksmen is irrelevant if they won't stand in face an enemy.

You have yet to prove your assertion that the militiamen were bad shots.

their militia was useless because they didn't have any discipline

Any discipline? Or not enough discipline to satisfy a regular army soldier? Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention.

Of my original comment that we are safer now then ever with policemen 10 or 30 minutes away(your numbers) is worse then have a militia 30 minutes away also your numbers. You decided to go off on a tangent about shooting I instead stayed on the matter at hand proving whether or not a militia could replace a police man. If you want to go off on a tangent about shooting skill I won't be part of it because it's irrelavent to this thread and my posts as I've stated multiple times.

If it is irrelevant then why did you say- "if you received assistance it was in the form of regular american citizens whose experience using firearms where limited". Try and keep up.

YOU are the one who attacked the militias experience FIRST. I countered that argument. YOU are the one who refuses to stay on topic.

Please give me what indian battle it was

YOU are the one who provided the source. What did you lose it?

Fine lets go ahead and switch this around I said cops where superior to militia you said they where superior to cops with fire power. You wanna continue with this tangent you prove it

I already did. 40 hours verses shooting experience from the time you were around 10. More training, better results.

The system needs to be changed because we have a congress that doesn't work

Doesn't work? You JUST said that the US is a stable nation. Obviously you think congress does work.

I take it your happy with the intense grid lock on capital hill?

Better than the emotional reactionism you seem to support.

Like I stated it doesn't really matter that much if assault weapons ban doesn't pass

YOU JUST SAID IT DID. For the love of Christ what is wrong with you?

Constant barbs and seeming disinterest in actually putting effort into a post. 1 sentence answers for everything with me providing the brunt of all the evidence without counter evidence. That and of course throwing me the gun control crowd in general I have views that are very explicit. Especially when you went on that little me wanting to deny your liberties rant.

Lies abound. If you have nothing of value to say, shut the hell up.

BTW- before you attack me for not putting effort into my posts, try using spell check. Also try and sober up before you write something again.

farson135:
First of all, do we really need another one of these?

Anyway, nuclear weapons are not arms but firearms are.

Why is it that I hear the term "nuclear arms" so often? Have I been missing out on a cool bionic attachment all this time?

farson135:

Hafrael:
If you seriously believe that any citizen with the means to produce or acquire a nuclear bomb should be allowed to own one you are delusional. That is just crazy.

If the US government gets one then so should the citizenry. If the government disarms then come and talk to me.

... guess not.

In any case, the problem with "the citizenry" having nuclear weapons is that "the citizenry" consists of individuals with divergent interests, varied inclinations, and different attitudes toward raining a harsh nuclear winter on their neighbors. Perhaps there should be some sort of organization that pools some of the resources of the citizenry and that, by popular direction, could keep such weapons without quite such a ridiculous risk of atomic catastrophe. Perhaps we could call it a democrament or a governacy.

The Gentleman:
Here's a good explanation of how the interpretation of that language changed in the 100 years that followed its adoption.

"The reconstruction Republicans don't love local militias. They believe in Grant's army. So they recast it. It becomes an individual right."

I once had the honor of personally interviewing Constitutional scholar Raoul Berger who bristled at the idea that the 2nd Amendment was a "group right." It uses the term, "people" not "state" for a reason. It doesn't read that the Federal Government shall not infringe, leaving the states to infringe (which the US Constitution's 1st Amendment would allow states to infringe on expression rights). It is worded as an individual right.

I did like the stuff about not even calling the 1st 10 "Bill of Rights" till after the 14th. Thank you for that. Interesting stuff.

1: The 2A is in the bill of rights, the part of the constitution that deals with the personal rights of citizens. All the other rights (even the funny ones about not having troops quartered in one's home) are personal ones. Freedom of speech, due process, etc. In addition, the use of "The People" is straightforward, especially when one looks at the rest of the text.

2: In regards to technology, the apex of military technology at the time this was written was the warship. And it was common for private citizens to own these, as well as cannon (the crew-served weapon of their day). For many years, this was clearly understood to fall under the 2A. This changed mid-19th century, especially once warships became significantly armored and hence too expensive and single-purpose for private citizens to use.

3: The common argument that the founders could not have forseen the extent of technological progress is facile. The truth is, we extend their concept of freedom of speech to cover radio and TV, not just actual, in person speech. And I don't think the founders envisioned that. It's just basic logic. We don't say "Well, with the introduction of the internet, we don't need due process anymore".

4: None of this means that the 2A shouldn't be updated to the times, but it does mean that attempting to "Read" new meanings into it is intellectually dishonest at best. The clear meaning of the text is a personal right of all citizens to keep (have) and bear (carry) weapons not for purposes of hunting or sport, but specifically those weapons used by the military of their day. The intent is military, and it is more constitutional to propose a ban on hunting weapons, as they are not covered. If you really think that "assault" weapons should be banned in America, fine, that's legitimate. But you have to repeal the 2A first.

Finally, a word on originalism. There's no religious notion that these words are stone for eternity. There's a clause in the constitution specifically for changing it if things change significantly. It's just hard to do. But the constitution has been amended many times. It will be amended again. But until it is, whatever parts of it you dislike are still the highest law of the land in America, and should be respected as such. If you don't like free speech, great, get two thirds of all the people to agree with you and remove that pesky 1A. But don't make silly arguments about how dead white men couldn't have forseen this. They foresaw that it would need to be changed. Your problem is that you haven't convinced enough people that your position is correct yet.

farson135:

taciturnCandid:
My point is that there really should be an errata to make the federalist papers canon. I mean, the federalist papers were never law. They weren't even written by the entire convention. Only 3 delegate's opinion was put into the paper.

Fine, here is a challenge. Find me even one constitutional delegate that was not in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.

There needs to be better wording and clarification on many things in the constitution.

Why? It is simple. The government does not have the right to bar the keeping and bearing of arms.

Some people act like it is some holy text, but it was made by people. And people make mistakes.

If you think that is the case then change the fucking law. I am so sick of people saying that we should just reinterpret the law. If you do not like it then change it. But if you just reinterpret it out of existence then you undermine the rule of law.

So, you agree that in such situation, the second amendment needs to be changed?

farson135:
snipped

"Prove it."

Yeah I'm done, I actually like the fact that you put more thought down farther in the post but I'm not even gonna read on. You want me to prove that we have enough checks and balances that we won't need armed rebellion? How about almost over 200 years of continuous power hand over from one congress to the next and one president to the next. The failure of so many armed rebellions. The fact that despite our immense differences there isn't war in the streets. Of course none of this is the crystal ball you expect and you'll flat out ignore the history of the country to make me prove something to you THAT DOESN'T NEED PROVING. I'm convinced your fucking with me and I'm tired of it.

farson135:

Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.
- Thomas Jefferson

Well then, the U.S. and pretty much every other government is tyrannical then.

Bring on the insurrection.

Seanchaidh:
Why is it that I hear the term "nuclear arms" so often? Have I been missing out on a cool bionic attachment all this time?

That is a different kind of "arm". An "arm" in a general sense (in this context) is referring to something that is effectively used by a single soldier.

In any case, the problem with "the citizenry" having nuclear weapons is that "the citizenry" consists of individuals with divergent interests, varied inclinations, and different attitudes toward raining a harsh nuclear winter on their neighbors. Perhaps there should be some sort of organization that pools some of the resources of the citizenry and that, by popular direction, could keep such weapons without quite such a ridiculous risk of atomic catastrophe. Perhaps we could call it a democrament or a governacy.

Or perhaps we just get rid of the damn things. Then everybody is satisfied.

Strazdas:
So, you agree that in such situation, the second amendment needs to be changed?

What situation are you referring to?

dmase:
You want me to prove that we have enough checks and balances that we won't need armed rebellion? How about almost over 200 years of continuous power hand over from one congress to the next and one president to the next. The failure of so many armed rebellions. The fact that despite our immense differences there isn't war in the streets. Of course none of this is the crystal ball you expect and you'll flat out ignore the history of the country to make me prove something to you THAT DOESN'T NEED PROVING. I'm convinced your fucking with me and I'm tired of it.

I am fucking with you? That is rich.

Anyway, 200 years of American history and 5,000 years of human history tell me that you are wrong. You have not proven that the issues that spawned the McMinn County War could have been avoided to the people's satisfaction. Prove that or you have no leg to stand on (and that is just one example).

Denholm Reynholm:
Well then, the U.S. and pretty much every other government is tyrannical then.

Pretty much. Perhaps we should fix that.

Genuine question, my American history can be a little hazy, but considering the violent way in which the US came about, has there ever been a nation wide vote on the US constitution, or alternatively was it passed by people elected in a nation wide vote?

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Why is it that I hear the term "nuclear arms" so often? Have I been missing out on a cool bionic attachment all this time?

That is a different kind of "arm". An "arm" in a general sense (in this context) is referring to something that is effectively used by a single soldier.

That seems rather ad hoc.

farson135:
[

In any case, the problem with "the citizenry" having nuclear weapons is that "the citizenry" consists of individuals with divergent interests, varied inclinations, and different attitudes toward raining a harsh nuclear winter on their neighbors. Perhaps there should be some sort of organization that pools some of the resources of the citizenry and that, by popular direction, could keep such weapons without quite such a ridiculous risk of atomic catastrophe. Perhaps we could call it a democrament or a governacy.

Or perhaps we just get rid of the damn things. Then everybody is satisfied.

Yes, getting rid of the things would be a good idea-- but only if everyone does. And that's a matter of diplomacy more than domestic politics.

taciturnCandid:

Some people act like it is some holy text, but it was made by people. And people make mistakes.

If you think that is the case then change the fucking law. I am so sick of people saying that we should just reinterpret the law. If you do not like it then change it. But if you just reinterpret it out of existence then you undermine the rule of law.

So, you agree that in such situation, the second amendment needs to be changed?[/quote]

He is saying if you want to remove the right to bear arms, try to amend the constitution. Do not try to side step the amends we already have by reading them in different ways. If you can muster the three fourths of Congress and the states to agree to it, if the vast majority of Americans think gun ownership is no longer a good idea, do THAT. Don't try to side step the constitution and the current Supreme Court rulings.

Not G. Ivingname:

He is saying if you want to remove the right to bear arms, try to amend the constitution. Do not try to side step the amends we already have by reading them in different ways. If you can muster the three fourths of Congress and the states to agree to it, if the vast majority of Americans think gun ownership is no longer a good idea, do THAT. Don't try to side step the constitution and the current Supreme Court rulings.

Which is exactly what i said saiyng: In a situation where there is a fault in constitution due to the original authors not being some perfect robot gods that make no mistakes and predict all future correctly a change in constitution was an acceptable choice.
Its just that most americans do indeed think the founding fathers were some sort of infallible gods so one has to make sure before arguing further.

Strazdas:

Not G. Ivingname:

He is saying if you want to remove the right to bear arms, try to amend the constitution. Do not try to side step the amends we already have by reading them in different ways. If you can muster the three fourths of Congress and the states to agree to it, if the vast majority of Americans think gun ownership is no longer a good idea, do THAT. Don't try to side step the constitution and the current Supreme Court rulings.

Which is exactly what i said saiyng: In a situation where there is a fault in constitution due to the original authors not being some perfect robot gods that make no mistakes and predict all future correctly a change in constitution was an acceptable choice.
Its just that most americans do indeed think the founding fathers were some sort of infallible gods so one has to make sure before arguing further.

Do I think the founding father were all seeing gods? No, they made mistakes.

However, I do think the right to bear arms is a good idea from a lot of the evidence I have read and seen. If you disagree, then go ahead, try to see if you can muster support to amend the constitution. The founders new they could get things wrong and allow the laws to be added or changed. You can throw out the entire constitution if you can get enough support for it. However, the one thing the founders did get right is to make the process extremely slow and hard to do, so the 51% can't instantly take the rights away from the 49.

Strazdas:

Which is exactly what i said saiyng: In a situation where there is a fault in constitution due to the original authors not being some perfect robot gods that make no mistakes and predict all future correctly a change in constitution was an acceptable choice.
Its just that most americans do indeed think the founding fathers were some sort of infallible gods so one has to make sure before arguing further.

No, it's that most americans think that the founders had a point on this particular issue. You'll not see a lot of support for the consideration of a black american as 3/5ths of a person, and that was the founders. We all know that was a mistake, and so we amended it right out. Once more, your problem is not some weird slavishness of the american people, we've amended the constitution 27 times. Your problem is that the majority of americans don't buy the anti-gun line. So either work on your argument, or accept that America likes her guns, and still agrees with her founders on that issue.

Macomber:

Strazdas:

Which is exactly what i said saiyng: In a situation where there is a fault in constitution due to the original authors not being some perfect robot gods that make no mistakes and predict all future correctly a change in constitution was an acceptable choice.
Its just that most americans do indeed think the founding fathers were some sort of infallible gods so one has to make sure before arguing further.

No, it's that most americans think that the founders had a point on this particular issue. You'll not see a lot of support for the consideration of a black american as 3/5ths of a person, and that was the founders. We all know that was a mistake, and so we amended it right out. Once more, your problem is not some weird slavishness of the american people, we've amended the constitution 27 times. Your problem is that the majority of americans don't buy the anti-gun line. So either work on your argument, or accept that America likes her guns, and still agrees with her founders on that issue.

Its not so much that i have a problem with not everyone being anti guns but that there are people who claim we can never regulate guns simply because of second amendment. according to them that is the ONLY argument against it and this is enough for them. To them constitution is unchangeable gods law and this is where the problem stems from.

Seanchaidh:
That seems rather ad hoc.

No, that is how they saw it in those days. As many people have pointed out, nuclear weapons did not exist in the 1700s. The ways of war were different and so were the founder's definition of arms. So, we should follow their definition of what an arm is because that was what they were referring to in the constitution. And no, they were not referring to just muskets. They were referring to, "their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier". What are our individual soldiers armed with today? Those are arms.

Strazdas:
Its not so much that i have a problem with not everyone being anti guns but that there are people who claim we can never regulate guns simply because of second amendment. according to them that is the ONLY argument against it and this is enough for them. To them constitution is unchangeable gods law and this is where the problem stems from.

You are combining two separate ideas. The fact that the Second Amendment exists is good enough for me. Why? BECAUSE IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Just because we believe that the supreme law of the land should be followed does not mean that we do not think it can be changed.

farson135:

Strazdas:
Its not so much that i have a problem with not everyone being anti guns but that there are people who claim we can never regulate guns simply because of second amendment. according to them that is the ONLY argument against it and this is enough for them. To them constitution is unchangeable gods law and this is where the problem stems from.

You are combining two separate ideas. The fact that the Second Amendment exists is good enough for me. Why? BECAUSE IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Just because we believe that the supreme law of the land should be followed does not mean that we do not think it can be changed.

.
Supreme court has the jurisdiction to interpret that law, right? So if a lawmaker passes a gun-regulations law, you can bring the issue to the supreme court and lay this to rest on the grounds of it being unconstitutional, no?

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
That seems rather ad hoc.

No, that is how they saw it in those days. As many people have pointed out, nuclear weapons did not exist in the 1700s. The ways of war were different and so were the founder's definition of arms. So, we should follow their definition of what an arm is because that was what they were referring to in the constitution. And no, they were not referring to just muskets. They were referring to, "their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier". What are our individual soldiers armed with today? Those are arms.

But they didn't specify individual soldier-- you're adding that in! Is there evidence that the founders didn't intend to mean cannons as a "terrible implement of the soldier"? Because those take two people (to operate efficiently, anyway). But they are definitely implements of soldiers. And in that time it was perfectly reasonable for a man to privately own a ship of war as well. Such efforts were part of the revolution, in fact. Do you mean to say that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't actually apply to arms aboard ship? Perhaps because ships employ 'sailors' rather than 'soldiers'? Or will you recognize that you're just assuming you know what they meant without much other than your own preconceptions?

TheIronRuler:
So if a lawmaker passes a gun-regulations law, you can bring the issue to the supreme court and lay this to rest on the grounds of it being unconstitutional, no?

We can but whether the SC will do its job or not is another question. Judicial activism is alive and well in the American SC.

Seanchaidh:
But they didn't specify individual soldier-- you're adding that in!

No, that is an arm as they considered it.

Is there evidence that the founders didn't intend to mean cannons as a "terrible implement of the soldier"? Because those take two people (to operate efficiently, anyway). But they are definitely implements of soldiers. And in that time it was perfectly reasonable for a man to privately own a ship of war as well. Such efforts were part of the revolution, in fact. Do you mean to say that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't actually apply to arms aboard ship? Perhaps because ships employ 'sailors' rather than 'soldiers'?

Actually most cannon are very effectively used by individuals. The only problem is that they wish to regulate the actions in order so that a step is not missed. One person does one job, in order. That ensures a slight increase in speed and it decreases the possibility of a missed step (forgetting to swab the barrel before pouring the powder is a bad idea). However, cannon are not arms. They are ordinance.

Also, I should have included the word "carried" as in carried by an individual soldier.

Or will you recognize that you're just assuming you know what they meant without much other than your own preconceptions?

Assuming? Can you show that they meant something else?

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

TheIronRuler:

farson135:

Strazdas:
Its not so much that i have a problem with not everyone being anti guns but that there are people who claim we can never regulate guns simply because of second amendment. according to them that is the ONLY argument against it and this is enough for them. To them constitution is unchangeable gods law and this is where the problem stems from.

You are combining two separate ideas. The fact that the Second Amendment exists is good enough for me. Why? BECAUSE IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Just because we believe that the supreme law of the land should be followed does not mean that we do not think it can be changed.

.
Supreme court has the jurisdiction to interpret that law, right? So if a lawmaker passes a gun-regulations law, you can bring the issue to the supreme court and lay this to rest on the grounds of it being unconstitutional, no?

They did.

The law was the DC handgun ban and trigger lock requirement.

I don't see why we still are talking about this.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked