Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 10:33:27 GMT -5
Seems to a little difference in opinion as to the definition of Militia, If you do like the current definition. just take you"re definition, trot off to the Supreme Court, get it changed this week. That is wrong. If you do not like the constitution as written you need to get 2/3 of congress to agree to change it, then convince 38 states to ratify that change. Getting the supreme court to change what was said is no different from just ignoring what is said. I know it works, but it doesn't if you respect honesty.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2015 11:14:49 GMT -5
Just a silly question: how many weapons did the average citizen own in or about 1787 when the Constitution was written? Do you think that they had something like 15-20 muskets and maybe 5-6 pistols/revolvers or more like 1-2 of each? I truly believe that the right to keep and bear arms was based on the presumption that if an average citizen has 1-2 muskets in his household but he also has at least one son that could handle weaponry and the government becomes tyrannical then at least they would be minimally armed as to protect themselves against such government. Of course, by joining that well regulated militia that may or may not contain citizens that are also veterans! if done properly, we would disban the army, then there would be lots of vets around for the militia.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2015 11:16:19 GMT -5
So I am to think that if our government turns oppressive and tyrannical, I in fact stand a chance to fight it off because I'll be armed with my knock-off AR-15 or my trusty Marlin 30-30. Add to that mix a couple pistols with 17 rounds magazine capacity. Nah! I think that is an idea for the suckers or for those that just want to gather a bunch of guns so they could feel "manly"! You do realize that the government is composed of people just like the rest of the citizenry?! We have as a nation developed so many fail safes against a tyrannical government since the late 1700 that such an action by the government would be impossible. The excuse of tyranny by the government is lame as it were in this day and age. The days of charging the battlefield are but a fading memory or nostalgia for the things past. Today, we have drones and planes that can spread death in an instant. How does one measure up against such things with a rifle, automatic as it may be? And for the up-teen time: nobody wants to ban guns!!! Responsible gun ownership is what is wanted. And please, oh please, for the love of God above, how does one justify owning 50 semi-auto rifles and 10-15 pistols with lots and lots of ammo for each as a means to "deffend himself"? Can he operate them all at once? Or maybe he is planing for the whole neighborhood? But wait: the neighbor has the same arsenal! If this ain't crazy, I don't know what is! You don't get TV in your house... do you? i don't. who wants to ban guns?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2015 11:17:47 GMT -5
That wouldn't be for Militia... that would be for National Guard (state armies). We should train for speech and religion also. If we trained for religion we could probably get rid of Scientology and fundamental Christianity. What we really need to train for is parenting. I think all parents should have to go at minimum one weekend a month for parent training. Two weeks of intensive training is a start, but I think maybe a month. If you think guns do bad think of all the terrible parents. to the degree speech and religion can harm non-consenting others, i agree. send that cake lady to a community college class in public law.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 18, 2015 12:56:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 17:45:49 GMT -5
... We should train for speech and religion also. ... A well regulated citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ... I guess to follow the Constitution, we should. I agree... A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 17:47:30 GMT -5
... (I really wish you'd quit editing out important context of my posts when you quote them... either leave them in their entirety... or don't quote them at all, please) I select the part of your post... Yes... you do. I wish you would quit it. Or at least post enough so the context cannot be incorrectly inferred if someone doesn't want to go look for the original.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 17:55:52 GMT -5
You don't get TV in your house... do you? i don't. who wants to ban guns? Lots of people. It's all over the news on a regular basis. Some people want to repeal the second amendment (there's even a " Repeal the Second Amendment" facebook page!). Some people want to make gun ownership a crime (too many links to decide on just one, just Google "wants to ban guns" with the quotes intact).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 18:01:35 GMT -5
i don't. who wants to ban guns? Lots of people. It's all over the news on a regular basis. Some people want to repeal the second amendment (there's even a " Repeal the Second Amendment" facebook page!). Some people want to make gun ownership a crime (too many links to decide on just one, just Google "wants to ban guns" with the quotes intact). Hillary Clinton thinks a forced buy back of guns in America is an idea worth considering. link
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 18:07:38 GMT -5
I support repeal of the 2nd Amendment and do not support the banning of guns.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 18:11:21 GMT -5
I support repeal of the 2nd Amendment... Maybe if you would have included the whole thing, you would have noticed that I separated the thought with a period... meaning that supporting one wrong idea doesn't necessarily mean supporting the other one.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 18:20:02 GMT -5
I support repeal of the 2nd Amendment... Maybe if you would have included the whole thing, you would have noticed that I separated the thought with a period... meaning that supporting one wrong idea doesn't necessarily mean supporting the other one. Same paragraph.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 18:31:04 GMT -5
Maybe if you would have included the whole thing, you would have noticed that I separated the thought with a period... meaning that supporting one wrong idea doesn't necessarily mean supporting the other one. Same paragraph. Yet conveniently left out of your quote...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 18:48:01 GMT -5
Yet conveniently left out of your quote... Quoting the whole paragraph would not have changed anything. Let me explain. i don't. who wants to ban guns? Here is the topic you have quoted and are about to answer. Lots of people. Here is your topic sentence. It's all over the news on a regular basis. Here is one supporting sentence for your topic sentence. Some people want to repeal the second amendment (there's even a " Repeal the Second Amendment" facebook page!). Here is a second supporting sentence. Some people want to make gun ownership a crime (too many links to decide on just one, just Google "wants to ban guns" with the quotes intact). Here is your third supporting sentence. Standard paragraph structure.As I wished to comment on only one of your supporting sentences, I only quoted that one sentence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 18:53:15 GMT -5
... I only quoted that one sentence. I know you did. Taking it out of context (as I just did, to my quote of you, here)
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 19:00:26 GMT -5
... I only quoted that one sentence. I know you did. Taking it out of context (as I just did, to my quote of you, here) And I have no problem with how you quoted only a part of my postings.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 19:10:56 GMT -5
I know you did. Taking it out of context (as I just did, to my quote of you, here) And I have no problem with how you quoted... I shall remember that. I shall also, from now on, until you stop doing it, use the partial quotes of you out of context as you have used the partial quotes of mine out of context. But... as long as we have an understanding that causes more work for everyone else and just clutters up the issues... but makes YOU happy... I guess the important parts are covered.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 19:23:19 GMT -5
... But... as long as we have an understanding that causes more work for everyone else and just clutters up the issues... but makes YOU happy... I guess the important parts are covered. We actually don't have that understanding. I believe that by isolating the part of a posting I am referring to helps clarity. YM(obviously)V
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 19:38:27 GMT -5
I believe that by isolating the part of a posting I am referring to helps clarity... Taking things out of context NEVER helps clarity.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 19:46:41 GMT -5
I believe that by isolating the part of a posting I am referring to helps clarity... Taking things out of context NEVER helps clarity. That is why I am careful not to take things out of context. I know you think I have done it but, as I showed above, you aren't correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 20:02:15 GMT -5
That is why I am careful not to take things out of context... By removing supporting structure you are most definitely taking things out of context... whether they change the tone of the words may be in doubt... but if context is removed, then by definition it is "out of context". And that "doubt" is what's in issue... just because YOU think it doesn't change things doesn't mean everyone else sees it the same way that you do.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 18, 2015 20:16:39 GMT -5
What's the subject of this thread again? Oh, yes! "Heat Packing Private Citizen Halts Robbery Suspect." I knew it wasn't about two guys having a pissing contest!
Take it to PMs, please. This is ridiculous. Other posters might just appreciate an opportunity to discuss the subject of the thread.
mmhmm, Administrator
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 20:17:59 GMT -5
That is why I am careful not to take things out of context... By removing supporting structure you are most definitely taking things out of context... whether they change the tone of the words may be in doubt... but if context is removed, then by definition it is "out of context". And that "doubt" is what's in issue... just because YOU think it doesn't change things doesn't mean everyone else sees it the same way that you do. Which is why I am clear where I have cut plus always show where one can go to see what I cut. If you feel that I have significantly misrepresented what you have posted, you just have to add a posting which shows I have done that. If others agree, it is my credibility which takes the hit. So back on topic for clarification: You accept that call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment does not equal a call for the banning of guns, correct?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 20:28:33 GMT -5
By removing supporting structure you are most definitely taking things out of context... whether they change the tone of the words may be in doubt... but if context is removed, then by definition it is "out of context". And that "doubt" is what's in issue... just because YOU think it doesn't change things doesn't mean everyone else sees it the same way that you do. Which is why I am clear where I have cut plus always show where one can go to see what I cut. If you feel that I have significantly misrepresented what you have posted, you just have to add a posting which shows I have done that. If others agree, it is my credibility which takes the hit. So back on topic for clarification: You accept that call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment does not equal a call for the banning of guns, correct? No. Because without the right to have and bear arms. it's that much easier to make them illegal. It's a logical "first step" to making them illegal. If you don't want them banned, why repeal the amendment that makes it a right to own them? What other purpose could repealing that amendment have?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 20:41:39 GMT -5
Which is why I am clear where I have cut plus always show where one can go to see what I cut. If you feel that I have significantly misrepresented what you have posted, you just have to add a posting which shows I have done that. If others agree, it is my credibility which takes the hit. So back on topic for clarification: You accept that call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment does not equal a call for the banning of guns, correct? No. Because without the right to have and bear arms. it's that much easier to make them illegal. It's a logical "first step" to making them illegal. If you don't want them banned, why repeal the amendment that makes it a right to own them? What other purpose could repealing that amendment have? Psychological. When this nation elects enough people to pass repeal and enough state legislatures to ratify it, we will be able to overcome the gun culture that is too prevalent in this country.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 20:44:00 GMT -5
No. Because without the right to have and bear arms. it's that much easier to make them illegal. It's a logical "first step" to making them illegal. If you don't want them banned, why repeal the amendment that makes it a right to own them? What other purpose could repealing that amendment have? Psychological. When this nation elects enough people to pass repeal and enough state legislatures to ratify it, we will be able to overcome the gun culture that is too prevalent in this country. Hopefully we will overcome the anti-gun culture that's trying to gain a foothold first!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 21:21:40 GMT -5
Psychological. When this nation elects enough people to pass repeal and enough state legislatures to ratify it, we will be able to overcome the gun culture that is too prevalent in this country. Hopefully we will overcome the anti-gun culture that's trying to gain a foothold first! That would be nice but I don't hold out much hope that our top recruiters will stop shooting large numbers of people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 4:19:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 21:46:14 GMT -5
Hopefully we will overcome the anti-gun culture that's trying to gain a foothold first! That would be nice but I don't hold out much hope that our top recruiters will stop shooting large numbers of people. Reasonable people will understand it's the person that's the problem though... not what weapons he/she may have or be using.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 22:02:41 GMT -5
That would be nice but I don't hold out much hope that our top recruiters will stop shooting large numbers of people. Reasonable people will understand it's the person that's the problem though... not what weapons he/she may have or be using. People raised in a gun culture are the problem.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2015 22:04:42 GMT -5
i don't. who wants to ban guns? Lots of people. It's all over the news on a regular basis. Some people want to repeal the second amendment (there's even a " Repeal the Second Amendment" facebook page!). Some people want to make gun ownership a crime (too many links to decide on just one, just Google "wants to ban guns" with the quotes intact). i don't do facebook. i will wait for links.
|
|