weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 5, 2019 18:50:44 GMT -5
LOL! what about the chemical weapons ban? No, I want the biological weapons, to use on people who look at me funny.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Aug 5, 2019 18:52:44 GMT -5
I'd prefer we help ourselves by requiring every adult to carry. No one is going to be dumb enough to open fire against a mall full of armed folks. The 2A has been a great success in that it has not be necessary to change our government.
Great idea, maybe like applying for a social security card when you are born, we'll issue them a gun as well? We might as well add DNA collection at birth too.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,106
Location: Maryland
Member is Online
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Aug 5, 2019 18:57:16 GMT -5
djAdvocate You can bring down a drone by jamming it. Not that I know how.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 19:08:40 GMT -5
djAdvocate You can bring down a drone by jamming it. Not that I know how. yeah, but what fun is that? I want to blow it up!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 20:04:31 GMT -5
Where does that say that in the Second Amendment?? first four words. National guard??
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 20:11:37 GMT -5
I think that tallguy is equating "well armed militia" with National Guard. it is not that much of a stretch.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 20:31:19 GMT -5
When the Second Amendment was signed, do you think that were thinking about home grown army of professional soldiers? Or the rag tag Revolutionary group made up of farmers, shoe makers, candle stick makers, storekeepers, woodsmen that had just won the war against England. I truly doubt they visualized the National Guard.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 5, 2019 20:44:15 GMT -5
When the Second Amendment was signed, do you think that were thinking about home grown army of professional soldiers? Or the rag tag Revolutionary group made up of farmers, shoe makers, candle stick makers, storekeepers, woodsmen that had just won the war against England. I truly doubt they visualized the National Guard.
Do you know who the members of the state National Guard units are?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 5, 2019 20:48:32 GMT -5
I think that tallguy is equating "well armed militia" with National Guard. it is not that much of a stretch.
It is not just "equating" the well-regulated militia with the National Guard. The Guard is the direct descendant of the state militias, and say so right in their history. From their website:
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 5, 2019 20:54:58 GMT -5
...
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
... OldCoyote, Why do you think the US Constitution has the above language?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 5, 2019 21:13:35 GMT -5
whats wrong with thoughts and prayers. If someone on here has a loved one that dies or is ill that is what all wishes them but have a mass shooting oh thoughts and prayers are made fun of like there is something else that needs to be done. So sad the double standards Something else does need to be done. All the thoughts and prayers are doing jack-shit. And now Mike Huckabee is blogging that thoughts and prayers are the only thing that will stop these shootings. Still worthless after all these years Oh, still worthless after all these years He is also apparently denying that Donald Trump can be a racist because someone who continually denies being a racist cannot be an open, avowed racist. Technically, I guess that is true, but just because Donald Trump has not publically affirmed that he is racist does not mean he isn't one. Nobody is saying "open, avowed racist" Mike. Moron.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 5, 2019 21:24:25 GMT -5
How convenient for all the gun nutters out there to just forget their sainted 2nd Amendment says ‘we’ll regulated’.
That means that a regulation banning AK 47’s is Constitutional. That means that a regulation requiring comprehensive background checks is Constitutional. That means that other regulations can be construed as Constitutional.
So there you have it goofballs.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 21:29:04 GMT -5
When the Second Amendment was signed, do you think that were thinking about home grown army of professional soldiers? Or the rag tag Revolutionary group made up of farmers, shoe makers, candle stick makers, storekeepers, woodsmen that had just won the war against England. I truly doubt they visualized the National Guard.
I don't doubt it one bit.
is it time to review the correspondence of Madison and Jefferson? because I think it is quite clear that this is precisely what they thought: that the citizens should be armed and trained to remove the need for standing armies.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 5, 2019 21:37:58 GMT -5
And with the advent of standing armies it obviated the need for such mandatory training for every man, but left it open to those who wished to be part of the militia. Today's National Guard.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 21:46:15 GMT -5
How convenient for all the gun nutters out there to just forget their sainted 2nd Amendment says ‘we’ll regulated’. That means that a regulation banning AK 47’s is Constitutional. That means that a regulation requiring comprehensive background checks is Constitutional. That means that other regulations can be construed as Constitutional. So there you have it goofballs. Think that will stand up in court?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 21:49:26 GMT -5
...
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
... OldCoyote , Why do you think the US Constitution has the above language? They are talking about the military, The militia is a separate phrase.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 21:55:35 GMT -5
...
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
... OldCoyote , Why do you think the US Constitution has the above language? They are talking about the military, The militia is a separate phrase. Jefferson authored the 2nd Amendment. HIS word is militia. here is what Jefferson said about standing armies at that time:
"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
this is Jefferson articulating the need for the 2nd Amendment, to defend AGAINST standing armies. so clearly, he recognized the distinction.
these words were not synonyms for Jefferson. when he says MILITIA, he means something OTHER than standing armies.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 5, 2019 22:03:14 GMT -5
...
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
... OldCoyote , Why do you think the US Constitution has the above language? They are talking about the military, The militia is a separate phrase. What? In the part that I quoted they talk about both the military and militias.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 5, 2019 22:06:04 GMT -5
How convenient for all the gun nutters out there to just forget their sainted 2nd Amendment says ‘we’ll regulated’. That means that a regulation banning AK 47’s is Constitutional. That means that a regulation requiring comprehensive background checks is Constitutional. That means that other regulations can be construed as Constitutional. So there you have it goofballs. Think that will stand up in court? Sure. Why shouldn’t it? We had an assault weapons ban already but the wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA screwed the pooch. Mass murders have upticked ever since.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,399
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 5, 2019 23:49:38 GMT -5
Given the advance in weapons, I am not convinced a bunch of guys with guns (even assault rifles) could adequately take on the tanks, planes, drones and bombs that the US Armed Forces have. I'm sure guerilla warfare could do some damage, but if push came to shove, our government could destroy us pretty quickly.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,505
|
Post by tbop77 on Aug 6, 2019 6:06:13 GMT -5
It is ironic how much money we spent invading Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, but defend to the high heavens our right to carry them in the streets of the US. The new America, walking around a crowded mall at Christmas after a law "requiring all adults to carry" has been passed.....looking at each other with our guns just daring each other to: MAKE MY DAY
President Trump will have to declare a national emergency to slap a tax on the middle class and take money from SS and Medicare to build more prisons.
MAGA!
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 6, 2019 7:42:02 GMT -5
Given the advance in weapons, I am not convinced a bunch of guys with guns (even assault rifles) could adequately take on the tanks, planes, drones and bombs that the US Armed Forces have. I'm sure guerilla warfare could do some damage, but if push came to shove, our government could destroy us pretty quickly. You need a 'well regulated' militia - the national guard - that has rules and soldiers and commanders and does training, etc.
If you give a random bunch of guys weapons, give them no training and no reporting structure, you get an armed rabble that will almost immediately start infighting, escalating things right up to the Lord of the Flies level. Just like the drug lords in Mexico.
I have confidence that my local militia could organize and fight back against an unlikely assault by a foreign government (Russian subs coming up the Tennessee River?) I am also extremely confident that, should my safety rest, instead, on the ability of my neighbors to come together with their handguns to form any kind of organized fighting force, I'm absolutely screwed, and so is every other man, woman, cow and chicken in our little rural paradise.
Which is exactly why the founding fathers talked about a 'well regulated militia.' Packs of unorganized males with weapons have been the bane of every civilized society since men first picked up rocks to chunk at each other.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 6, 2019 8:48:16 GMT -5
They are talking about the military, The militia is a separate phrase. Jefferson authored the 2nd Amendment. HIS word is militia. here is what Jefferson said about standing armies at that time:
"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
this is Jefferson articulating the need for the 2nd Amendment, to defend AGAINST standing armies. so clearly, he recognized the distinction.
these words were not synonyms for Jefferson. when he says MILITIA, he means something OTHER than standing armies.
Thank You DJ!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 6, 2019 8:59:52 GMT -5
Think that will stand up in court? Sure. Why shouldn’t it? We had an assault weapons ban already but the wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA screwed the pooch. Mass murders have upticked ever since. Out of curiosity, since it has been established?? that the guns are the sole and only reason for the deaths,
want to take a moment and look to our neighbor to the South,where guns are highly restricted,
the gun death there that are only caused by guns and not the people that have them, After all we want open borders here. Interesting that my Mexican American family and friends WILL NOT travel across certain parts of Mexico, except during the day,, and only reluctantly so,, like taking a car or truck down. It is the gun that they are afraid of ,, right?? Kinda funny that I have a whole big safe full of guns , not a single one sneaks out at night shoots the neighborhood up by it's self!
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 6, 2019 9:18:09 GMT -5
Sure. Why shouldn’t it? We had an assault weapons ban already but the wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA screwed the pooch. Mass murders have upticked ever since. Out of curiosity, since it has been established?? that the guns are the sole and only reason for the deaths,
want to take a moment and look to our neighbor to the South,where guns are highly restricted,
the gun death there that are only caused by guns and not the people that have them, After all we want open borders here. Interesting that my Mexican American family and friends WILL NOT travel across certain parts of Mexico, except during the day,, and only reluctantly so,, like taking a car or truck down. It is the gun that they are afraid of ,, right?? Kinda funny that I have a whole big safe full of guns , not a single one sneaks out at night shoots the neighborhood up by it's self!
NO ONE is saying 'it's the guns.' No one cares that you have a safe full of guns.
It's the guns in the hands of the mentally ill and the terrorists, and it's the military style assault weapons that serve no purpose except that they're 'fun to shoot.' Get a VR video game and shoot all the pretend brown people in some video waste land with whatever weapons you want, but there's no legitimate reason for any civilian to have anything other than a hand gun or hunting rifle.
If those of you who adore your guns don't understand that 95% of Americans want simple things like enhanced background checks, and you continue to refuse to compromise in ways to keep the MI and terrorists to get weapons, you could end up losing your safe full of guns.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Aug 6, 2019 9:38:49 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, since it has been established?? that the guns are the sole and only reason for the deaths,
want to take a moment and look to our neighbor to the South,where guns are highly restricted,
the gun death there that are only caused by guns and not the people that have them, After all we want open borders here. Interesting that my Mexican American family and friends WILL NOT travel across certain parts of Mexico, except during the day,, and only reluctantly so,, like taking a car or truck down. It is the gun that they are afraid of ,, right?? Kinda funny that I have a whole big safe full of guns , not a single one sneaks out at night shoots the neighborhood up by it's self!
NO ONE is saying 'it's the guns.' No one cares that you have a safe full of guns.
It's the guns in the hands of the mentally ill and the terrorists, and it's the military style assault weapons that serve no purpose except that they're 'fun to shoot.' Get a VR video game and shoot all the pretend brown people in some video waste land with whatever weapons you want, but there's no legitimate reason for any civilian to have anything other than a hand gun or hunting rifle.
If those of you who adore your guns don't understand that 95% of Americans want simple things like enhanced background checks, and you continue to refuse to compromise in ways to keep the MI and terrorists to get weapons, you could end up losing your safe full of guns. I don't know, I'm kinda coming around to the idea of restrictions on amount of guns, as well as type. Or, at the very least, making people register and license each firearm. Much like on healthcare, the rights complete abdication of ANY response on gun control has removed them from the conversation. All they do is throw up obstruction while offering no ideas.
Enabling the stockpiling of weapons, to appease some ridiculous male delusion where they fight off armed military forces to "take back" the country, is part of the problem with gun culture in this country.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,399
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 6, 2019 11:51:03 GMT -5
Maybe we should shut down the internet. It seems that most of these people have some connection on a weirdo-extremist website. Not always connected to racism - sometimes just guys who sit around and talk about how the world is against them and violence is a viable solution. And they don't always link their motives to anything in particular, but even a casual proximity to that kind of discontent seems to fester violence. Maybe if the internet was shut down those guys would go outside and be a little closer to normal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2019 11:55:25 GMT -5
Maybe we should shut down the internet. It seems that most of these people have some connection on a weirdo-extremist website. Not always connected to racism - sometimes just guys who sit around and talk about how the world is against them and violence is a viable solution. And they don't always link their motives to anything in particular, but even a casual proximity to that kind of discontent seems to fester violence. Maybe if the internet was shut down those guys would go outside and be a little closer to normal. extremists have always weaponized the 1st amendment against us. this is nothing new.
what IS new is the REACH of the internet.
and yeah, it is troubling.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2019 11:57:10 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, since it has been established?? that the guns are the sole and only reason for the deaths,
want to take a moment and look to our neighbor to the South,where guns are highly restricted,
the gun death there that are only caused by guns and not the people that have them, After all we want open borders here. Interesting that my Mexican American family and friends WILL NOT travel across certain parts of Mexico, except during the day,, and only reluctantly so,, like taking a car or truck down. It is the gun that they are afraid of ,, right?? Kinda funny that I have a whole big safe full of guns , not a single one sneaks out at night shoots the neighborhood up by it's self!
NO ONE is saying 'it's the guns.' No one cares that you have a safe full of guns.
It's the guns in the hands of the mentally ill and the terrorists, and it's the military style assault weapons that serve no purpose except that they're 'fun to shoot.' Get a VR video game and shoot all the pretend brown people in some video waste land with whatever weapons you want, but there's no legitimate reason for any civilian to have anything other than a hand gun or hunting rifle.
If those of you who adore your guns don't understand that 95% of Americans want simple things like enhanced background checks, and you continue to refuse to compromise in ways to keep the MI and terrorists to get weapons, you could end up losing your safe full of guns.
oh, they could lose way more than that: a parent, a child, or a spouse, for example.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 6, 2019 12:55:47 GMT -5
Sure. Why shouldn’t it? We had an assault weapons ban already but the wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA screwed the pooch. Mass murders have upticked ever since. Out of curiosity, since it has been established?? that the guns are the sole and only reason for the deaths,
want to take a moment and look to our neighbor to the South,where guns are highly restricted,
the gun death there that are only caused by guns and not the people that have them, After all we want open borders here. Interesting that my Mexican American family and friends WILL NOT travel across certain parts of Mexico, except during the day,, and only reluctantly so,, like taking a car or truck down. It is the gun that they are afraid of ,, right?? Kinda funny that I have a whole big safe full of guns , not a single one sneaks out at night shoots the neighborhood up by it's self!
It just dawned on me (that happens!) that if you are opposed to comprehensive background checks, a ban on assault weapons such as the AR-15 and the AK-47, and a restriction of large magazines, it could be construed that you are a philosophical accessory to mass murder. Those regulations (well regulated militia, right?) would surely he helpful in aiding the decline in mass murders and would also have the benefit of pissing off millions of paranoid righties.
|
|