|
Post by bluehen on Aug 6, 2019 16:17:05 GMT
Easy access to deadly weaponry as enabled ,protected, and promoted by the NRA That's the bottom line, IMO, regarding this issue
Then get out there and promote changing the constitution.. because, THAT is the ONLY way to legally do what YOU want to do.
If you can't do that, then.... you'd better start coming up with other solutions, because.. trying to legislate away constitutional rights will just generate MORE of these kinds of events.. The "well regulated militia" will fight back.
I wish this problem were as simple as you think it is, Hen. It's not.
Gun access today is not significantly different than it was 5 years ago. But, our people are. This is a people problem, not a gun problem.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 6, 2019 16:22:27 GMT
Easy access to deadly weaponry as enabled ,protected, and promoted by the NRA That's the bottom line, IMO, regarding this issue
Then get out there and promote changing the constitution.. because, THAT is the ONLY way to legally do what YOU want to do.
If you can't do that, then.... you'd better start coming up with other solutions, because.. trying to legislate away constitutional rights will just generate MORE of these kinds of events.. The "well regulated militia" will fight back.
I wish this problem were as simple as you think it is, Hen. It's not.
Gun access today is not significantly different than it was 5 years ago. But, our people are. This is a people problem, not a gun problem.
Don't have to change the constitution, Bevo, just acknowledge a literal interpretation of the 2A rather than the NRA's self serving hijacked interpretation. Armed citizens of a 'Well Regulated Militia' is Ok. None of these 200 + mass slaughter gunmen , so far this year, were members of any well regulated militia or well regulated anything.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo 2 on Aug 6, 2019 16:48:54 GMT
Then get out there and promote changing the constitution.. because, THAT is the ONLY way to legally do what YOU want to do.
If you can't do that, then.... you'd better start coming up with other solutions, because.. trying to legislate away constitutional rights will just generate MORE of these kinds of events.. The "well regulated militia" will fight back.
I wish this problem were as simple as you think it is, Hen. It's not.
Gun access today is not significantly different than it was 5 years ago. But, our people are. This is a people problem, not a gun problem.
Don't have to change the constitution, Bevo, just acknowledge a literal interpretation of the 2A rather than the NRA's self serving hijacked interpretation. Armed citizens of a 'Well Regulated Militia' is Ok. None of these 200 + mass slaughter gunmen , so far this year, were members of any well regulated militia or well regulated anything. That’s just wrong Hen. The founding fathers left tons of writings to us explaining what it meant. If you value our rights at all, you need to be against having people in robes “re-interpret” plainly written and explained language.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 6, 2019 18:05:50 GMT
Then get out there and promote changing the constitution.. because, THAT is the ONLY way to legally do what YOU want to do.
If you can't do that, then.... you'd better start coming up with other solutions, because.. trying to legislate away constitutional rights will just generate MORE of these kinds of events.. The "well regulated militia" will fight back.
I wish this problem were as simple as you think it is, Hen. It's not.
Gun access today is not significantly different than it was 5 years ago. But, our people are. This is a people problem, not a gun problem.
Don't have to change the constitution, Bevo, just acknowledge a literal interpretation of the 2A rather than the NRA's self serving hijacked interpretation. Armed citizens of a 'Well Regulated Militia' is Ok. None of these 200 + mass slaughter gunmen , so far this year, were members of any well regulated militia or well regulated anything. That's correct. None of these murderers were part of the general militia. James Madison stated that the militia is composed of all able-bodied men capable of bearing arms and are law-abiding citizens. Also, (as it bears repeating) "well-regulated" has nothing to do with laws and/or regulations as we use the term today. At the time written, "well-regulated" meant properly functioning or in good working order. It's not the NRA that is twisting what is written, it's everyone else who wants it to mean something other than what it actually means. The second amendment was not written because deer might overthrow the government. Like Bevo said, it's written in plain English.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 7, 2019 12:50:02 GMT
From Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language : """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Militia - A body of men enrolled for military service and called out periodically for drill and exercise but serving full time only in emergencies.
- A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers
Regulated - Controlled or directed by rule, principle, method, etc. - Adjusting to some standard or requirement
Yep, sounds just like a bunch of renegade lunatics running around with deadly huge magazine capacity, semi-automatic weaponry (enabled, promoted and defended by the NRA) and mowing innocent people down. Doesn't it ?
C'mon men ..these creeps are not 'called out' for any kind of duty, they are not citizen soldiers, they don't have drills and exercises and they are not controlled by rules or principles or enrolled in anything or have to adjust to any standards or requirements.
They are unequivocally NOT PART OF ANY WELL REGULATE MILITIA.
A genuine well regulated militia is fine. What we have in this country is not.
C'm boys
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 7, 2019 13:53:35 GMT
C'mon men ..these creeps are not 'called out' for any kind of duty, they are not citizen soldiers, That is EXACTLY what this guy in El Paso considered himself.
He was tired of our government not defending our border, so he decided to do it himself. He's been reported as telling investigators that it was seeing ALL the Democratic candidates raise their hand supporting free health care for illegals that "triggered him" into action. Yet, all the Dems a are 100% it was ONLY TRUMP that caused it.
Actions, and inactions have consequences.
The Antifa guy in Dayton was actually prepared and equipped to do a LOT more damage. Only the presence, and immediate action of ARMED police prevented him from doing so.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 7, 2019 14:16:06 GMT
From Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Militia - A body of men enrolled for military service and called out periodically for drill and exercise but serving full time only in emergencies. - A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers Regulated - Controlled or directed by rule, principle, method, etc. - Adjusting to some standard or requirement Yep, sounds just like a bunch of renegade lunatics running around with deadly huge magazine capacity, semi-automatic weaponry (enabled, promoted and defended by the NRA) and mowing innocent people down. Doesn't it ? C'mon men ..these creeps are not 'called out' for any kind of duty, they are not citizen soldiers, they don't have drills and exercises and they are not controlled by rules or principles or enrolled in anything or have to adjust to any standards or requirements. They are unequivocally NOT PART OF ANY WELL REGULATE MILITIA. A genuine well regulated militia is fine. What we have in this country is not. C'm boys That's not the applicable definition for what the Founders created. Militia as defined above refers to the National Guard, not the citizen militia. The Founders were very clear on this... The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected, or in proper working order. NOT laws and regulations. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. Well-regulated (defined as subject to lots of laws and rules) is precisely the OPPPOSITE of what the Founders wanted for 2A. But again, don't focus on the introductory clause....the main point is the people have the right to keep and bear arms...both for their self-defense, and to potentially augment a standing army.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 7, 2019 16:14:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 7, 2019 16:47:11 GMT
In the times of the founding fathers and constitution writers a military weapon was a single shot muzzle loading musket that got off one shot per minute or maybe two in the hands of an expert. These same founding fathers today, IMO, would be appalled at the slaughter, the enabling NRA and lunatics running around churches, schools, theaters, parks, malls etc. with semi-automatic weaponry and 60 round magazines. I wish they could come back. There would be common sense legislation in place very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 7, 2019 19:22:48 GMT
In the times of the founding fathers and constitution writers a military weapon was a single shot muzzle loading musket that got off one shot per minute or maybe two in the hands of an expert. These same founding fathers today, IMO, would be appalled at the slaughter, the enabling NRA and lunatics running around churches, schools, theaters, parks, malls etc. with semi-automatic weaponry and 60 round magazines. I wish they could come back. There would be common sense legislation in place very quickly. They gave us the mechanism to change our constitution... and, it's been successfully done 27 times. Make the case that guns are the enemy, and go start a movement to change it.
Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 7, 2019 19:39:44 GMT
In the times of the founding fathers and constitution writers a military weapon was a single shot muzzle loading musket that got off one shot per minute or maybe two in the hands of an expert. These same founding fathers today, IMO, would be appalled at the slaughter, the enabling NRA and lunatics running around churches, schools, theaters, parks, malls etc. with semi-automatic weaponry and 60 round magazines. I wish they could come back. There would be common sense legislation in place very quickly. There were a number of semi-auto rifles available then, some were even breach loaded not muzzle loaded. And they were expensive. In fact, there was a developer that was trying to get Gen. Washington to buy his weapon, but Washington thought it too expensive and didn't want the country to go into debt to purchase a stock of these weapons. It featured a 20 round magazine, a high rate off fire, and had an effective range of roughly 125 yards. The Girodoni, the Puckle and the Ferguson were all repeaters operational and available to the Founders. So, while it is true the most common was a single shot muzzle loader, it is not true that more sophisticated weaponry did not exist, or as the gun grabbers like to say..."the Founders could have never imagined semi automatic weapons" Repeating arms pre-date the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1606. Davinci designed a repeater in 1481. To say the Founders could never have "imagined" such weapons is completely false. These weapons existed and they were familiar with them.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Aug 7, 2019 23:51:50 GMT
The lack of understanding of THE BILL OF RIGHTS is astonishing.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 8, 2019 4:16:48 GMT
In the times of the founding fathers and constitution writers a military weapon was a single shot muzzle loading musket that got off one shot per minute or maybe two in the hands of an expert. These same founding fathers today, IMO, would be appalled at the slaughter, the enabling NRA and lunatics running around churches, schools, theaters, parks, malls etc. with semi-automatic weaponry and 60 round magazines. I wish they could come back. There would be common sense legislation in place very quickly. There were a number of semi-auto rifles available then, some were even breach loaded not muzzle loaded. And they were expensive. In fact, there was a developer that was trying to get Gen. Washington to buy his weapon, but Washington thought it too expensive and didn't want the country to go into debt to purchase a stock of these weapons. It featured a 20 round magazine, a high rate off fire, and had an effective range of roughly 125 yards. The Girodoni, the Puckle and the Ferguson were all repeaters operational and available to the Founders. So, while it is true the most common was a single shot muzzle loader, it is not true that more sophisticated weaponry did not exist, or as the gun grabbers like to say..."the Founders could have never imagined semi automatic weapons" Repeating arms pre-date the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1606. Davinci designed a repeater in 1481. To say the Founders could never have "imagined" such weapons is completely false. These weapons existed and they were familiar with them. I've never heard anything like that ( maybe my ignorance)So please post images of circa 1776 hand held semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines and capability of several rounds per second.....AND EASILY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.Thanks, CPACan't blame me or anyone for wondering how weaponry hasn't evolved at all in 240 years, can you ?
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 8, 2019 14:14:51 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifleThe Ferguson was used against us. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gunen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifleAnd further, I'd just not even focus on the "well-regulated militia" part. It is simply an introductory clause. "The right of the people” is not some inscrutable phrase that’s impossible to decipher. It appears verbatim in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments. It could read: Cold weather, being necessary to create snow, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right is invested in the people, not the militia.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 8, 2019 16:19:11 GMT
The Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality. That means that the court has recognized that the framers did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its preexistence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government — state and federal — from infringing upon it.
|
|