And here they come out of woodwork

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rushie said:
It's not a matter of wanting x number of guns. Because the 2nd amendment mentions militia, it is pretty clear that the intent is an armed citizenry against enemies from within or without, in other words, human opponents. Back in late 1700's the framers might have had British redcoats in mind, or even hostile Indians. As such, the "arms" referenced would be the equivalent of what a foot soldier would carry. If your infrantry enemy had long rifles or muskets, you would have the same, if small arms, yes, bayonet, yes. Today the soldier on the ground would carry a fully automatic rifle and that is the standard to which I interpret the 2nd to apply.
Click to expand...

However, militia is an exception here, let's not forget that. Farmers didn't all have a long rifle just lying around. Some probably did. Where did those weapons come from when they were conscripted or called to action? Some probably had weapons, but I'll bet they got more from the military.

Automatic rifles have a purpose. Private citizens do not need them for protection, or hunting. I do agree however that militia or military personnel have different requirements as a job function or role. That a person "might" be needed for militia is not an excuse to let Joe Shmo buy an AK 47.
 
PPC1052 said:
Let me help you guys out. Essentially, you guys are arguing whether the word "illegal" means "criminal." Ok, now carry on.
Click to expand...
Yes, and no. I agree with the point you are making. But the point I've been making is that it doesn't matter what you call it. Either it makes someone a criminal if they do it, or it doesn't change anything. There's no middle ground like he wants to pretend there is. A magical middle area where there is no new crime, but people do what he wants because he wants them to.
 
Caramon13 said:
However, militia is an exception here, let's not forget that. Farmers didn't all have a long rifle just lying around. Some probably did. Where did those weapons come from when they were conscripted or called to action? Some probably had weapons, but I'll bet they got more from the military.

Automatic rifles have a purpose. Private citizens do not need them for protection, or hunting. I do agree however that militia or military personnel have different requirements as a job function or role. That a person "might" be needed for militia is not an excuse to let Joe Shmo buy an AK 47.
Click to expand...
You really think in the 1700's a long gun (not rifle) was not a required tool for a farmer? If so, you have no clue.
 
Caramon13 said:
However, militia is an exception here, let's not forget that. Farmers didn't all have a long rifle just lying around. Some probably did. Where did those weapons come from when they were conscripted or called to action? Some probably had weapons, but I'll bet they got more from the military.

Automatic rifles have a purpose. Private citizens do not need them for protection, or hunting. I do agree however that militia or military personnel have different requirements as a job function or role. That a person "might" be needed for militia is not an excuse to let Joe Shmo buy an AK 47.
Click to expand...
Why, in general, do you think Gun ownership should be limited? Is it because of the mass shootings?
 
200w.gif
 
Caramon13 said:
Man...that's disappointing :(.
Click to expand...
I knew there was no hope for you when I saw you quoting Bill Nye. ;)

But I like your flight map. Looks a lot like mine.
 
Caramon13 said:
However, militia is an exception here, let's not forget that. Farmers didn't all have a long rifle just lying around. Some probably did. Where did those weapons come from when they were conscripted or called to action? Some probably had weapons, but I'll bet they got more from the military.

Automatic rifles have a purpose. Private citizens do not need them for protection, or hunting. I do agree however that militia or military personnel have different requirements as a job function or role. That a person "might" be needed for militia is not an excuse to let Joe Shmo buy an AK 47.
Click to expand...


Again, you're drawing a distinction between private citizens and militia. The militia is comprised of private citizens by definition.

Also, you seem to believe (correct me if I'm mistaken) that a right must be justified by a need before it can be exercised. This is a profound fallacy, and one which I don't think you'd apply to rights other than bearing arms. Must I show a need to go to church before I can exercise my freedom of religion? Must I prove the necessity of voicing my opinion before I can exercise my freedom of speech?
 
Cooter said:
Why, in general, do you think Gun ownership should be limited? Is it because of the mass shootings?
Click to expand...

Not really, no. There's always been gun violence and there probably always will be, no matter what anyone does.

Guns today are relatively easy to acquire, too easy I think. I think that's a problem. In none of my posts I have argued the point that people should be able to bear arms. In fact I quite agree with that right. I am also not against the spirit of the second amendment, more along the lines with how its been interpreted.

My major concern is access for everyone and quantity. That's basically it.
 
steingar said:
Firearms are more American than Apple pie
Click to expand...

America was born of guns. We didn't like the previous owners so we shot them off the continent.

Half Fast said:
This is more profound than many realize.

In the UK, sovereignty rests in a monarch. Here in the US, sovereignty is held by the people themselves, collectively. Sovereignty and arms are inseperable for both philosophical and practical reasons. Disarm the US citizenry and we are no longer sovereign, but are reduced to subjects.

The US Founders understood this, and they had the practical experience of finding it necessary to take up their personal arms, overthrow a monarch, and establish a new sovereign power within the citizenry.

Arms are so deeply part of who we Americans are that if they were to be removed, we would cease to be the USA.
Click to expand...

No sane country would land here, it would be a suicide mission. http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/04/american-hunters-–-world’s-largest-army

Caramon13 said:
Oh I have regard for the Constitution, but I think it's people who take that "right to bear arms" to mean "All the guns are belonging to me now" are just not right in the head. No one needs more than a couple guns. People WANT more than a couple guns. It's about want here..not need.
Click to expand...

No one needs a private aircraft, a $100k pickup truck, a boat or a............

Luckly we live in the land of the (still somewhat) free, and are free to live our lives as we wish as long as we live within the law.

Caramon13 said:
So you are telling me that you need, and by need I mean similar to "need" air to live, all those guns to kill all those critters? Or you simply WANT those guns because killing those critters makes you happy?
Click to expand...

Yes, some kill critters to make them happy. I have no particular interest in that area, but I do know many poorer rural families count on hunting to put meat on the table. My grandfather and his family ate everything he killed, sometimes it was the only way. He had to quit school in 6th grade during the depression, and never held a very high paying job. When we went to grandma's house for thanksgiving dinner, it was wild turkey that was gotten during turkey season. In college I was thrilled when he or my uncles bagged an extra deer, venison was pretty damned good meat for a struggling college student.

And he didn't waste ammunition, it was expensive to him. The only shooting he did was when he thought he had a good shot on game.
 
Caramon13 said:
Not really, no. There's always been gun violence and there probably always will be, no matter what anyone does.

Guns today are relatively easy to acquire, too easy I think. I think that's a problem. In none of my posts I have argued the point that people should be able to bear arms. In fact I quite agree with that right. I am also not against the spirit of the second amendment, more along the lines with how its been interpreted.

My major concern is access for everyone and quantity. That's basically it.
Click to expand...
It only takes one gun and one bullet to kill a person.
 
Caramon13 said:
Oh totally agree. Not gonna be able to stop those people.
Click to expand...
Then what good does it do to limit innocent people to arbitrary boundaries?
 
Caramon13, let me help you a little. "Militia" is defined in the U.S. Code. It's federal law.

Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
 
Half Fast said:
Again, you're drawing a distinction between private citizens and militia. The militia is comprised of private citizens by definition.

Also, you seem to believe (correct me if I'm mistaken) that a right must be justified by a need before it can be exercised. This is a profound fallacy, and one which I don't think you'd apply to rights other than bearing arms. Must I show a need to go to church before I can exercise my freedom of religion? Must I prove the necessity of voicing my opinion before I can exercise my freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

Thank you, well put.
 
Since this thing is already off the rails, I will ask the question I have wanted to ask. Specifically, in a few sentences, explain what gun control legislation should say. @Caramon13 and anyone else who may have that opinion. I really want to know what you think.
 
Half Fast said:
Caramon13, let me help you a little. "Militia" is defined in the U.S. Code. It's federal law.

Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
Click to expand...

As an FYI, this seems to have moved to 10 U.S.C. § 246.
 
Caramon13 said:
Automatic rifles have a purpose. Private citizens do not need them for protection, or hunting. I do agree however that militia or military personnel have different requirements as a job function or role. That a person "might" be needed for militia is not an excuse to let Joe Shmo buy an AK 47.
Click to expand...

I disagree. You can watch other countries and extrapolate similar things could happen here. For example in several African countries in recent decades when government is unstable and there are thuggish armed gangs about raping and killing based on ethnicity or religion, they carry AK 47s and roam looking for victims. If (when?) that comes to America I and my family will "need" the equivalent portable arms. I am not assuming that just because I lucked out and grew up in the most stable safest society in the history of the human race that that condition will continue indefinitely. It won't.
 
Mike Smith said:
Since this thing is already off the rails, I will ask the question I have wanted to ask. Specifically, in a few sentences, explain what gun control legislation should say. @Caramon13 and anyone else who may have that opinion. I really want to know what you think.
Click to expand...

I look at it this way. Theoretically, ignoring all factors other than guns, the safest situation for me personally would be for me to be the ONLY person on the planet with a gun. No guns for the cops, the military, other nations, etc. I'm the sole possessor of a firearm. As soon as anyone else has a gun besides me, I become less safe.

Now, viewed from that framework, any legislation which controls my gun ownership before it diminishes everyone else's ability to have a gun will make me less safe, and is therefore unacceptable.

From a practical standpoint, we already have too much gun legislation with very little to show for it. Why not restate your question to ask what laws we should eliminate?
 
Mike Smith said:
Specifically, in a few sentences, explain what gun control legislation should say. @Caramon13 and anyone else who may have that opinion. I really want to know what you think.
Click to expand...
They don't know what to think, nor do they have a clue of what regulations to impose. I think their biggest issue is the so-called "gun show loophole" which if any of them cared to do any research would find there really isn't a loophole. They also want to make private party sales illegal, which again would be totally unenforceable. California and New York are very good examples of their failed policies and regulations.
 
PPC1052 said:
As an FYI, this seems to have moved to 10 U.S.C. § 246.
Click to expand...

Ah ha! You're right! Thanks.

Most states also have their own militia laws that allow the state governor to call up the militia upon need. I know we have such a law here in Florida.
 
How many people die each year from alcohol? How many innocent lives are taken from drunk drivers each year? If we look at the numbers, isn't it honestly time to start talking about restricting access to alcohol? Way more innocent people die from alcohol every year.

Tell me why anyone NEEDS more than 6 beers in a fridge at one time. You don't need that many beers. You may WANT that many beers, but nobody needs that many.
 
Bill Jennings said:
No one needs a private aircraft, a $100k pickup truck, a boat or a............

Luckly we live in the land of the (still somewhat) free, and are free to live our lives as we wish as long as we live within the law.
Click to expand...
AKA "The Purfuit of Happineff"
 
Half Fast said:
Why not restate your question to ask what laws we should eliminate?
Click to expand...

You and I are on the same side of the conversation. I am asking those who wish to impose restrictions just exactly what said legislation would say. Generally, that question gets " I don't know, but we have to DO SOMETHING". We both know that the truth is, short of confiscation, nothing will stop these things from happening.
 
Cooter said:
Right, we have guns to fight back. No one wants to say that anymore. Kim Jong un would have a much harder time starving his people if they had a 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

If they had a 2nd Amendment would we still be complaining about Kim Jong Un exercising his ‘right to bear arms’ right now?

Seems we’re pretty selective about what ‘arms’ refer to. And the ‘arms’ we need to truly fight back against government oppression bare very little resemblance to guns. And nobody is talking about making tanks, fighters, bombers, rockets and WMDs available to the citizenry. (or are they?)

This isn’t about a right to fight back against the government - It hasn’t been for a long time. It’s about personal prefence and culture - and people making money from gun sales. But if the GMAN is truly coming for you - you know the arms you have legal access to won’t make a dent of a difference.
 
Mike Smith said:
You and I are on the same side of the conversation. I am asking those who wish to impose restrictions just exactly what said legislation would say. Generally, that question gets " I don't know, but we have to DO SOMETHING". We both know that the truth is, short of confiscation, nothing will stop these things from happening.
Click to expand...
Ask the same people how much people should be taxed, and you get the same mumbling response.
 
noob said:
If they had a 2nd Amendment would we still be complaining about Kim Jong Un exercising his ‘right to bear arms’ right now?

Seems we’re pretty selective about what ‘arms’ refer to. And the ‘arms’ we need to truly fight back against government oppression bare very little resemblance to guns. And nobody is talking about making tanks, fighters, bombers, rockets and WMDs available to the citizenry. (or are they?)

This isn’t about a right to fight back against the government - It hasn’t been for a long time. It’s about personal prefence and culture - and people making money from gun sales. But if the GMAN is truly coming for you - you know the arms you have legal access to won’t make a dent of a difference.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but you can take some of them with you. This country won the Revolution even though we were horribly equipped and outnumbered.
 
noob said:
This isn’t about a right to fight back against the government - It hasn’t been for a long time. It’s about personal prefence and culture - and people making money from gun sales. But if the GMAN is truly coming for you - you know the arms you have legal access to won’t make a dent of a difference.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but you are mistaken. You're saying the 2nd Amendment stopped being the 2nd Amendment and became a cultural preference. This is a very convenient switcharoo if your goal is to undermine Constitutional rights.
 
Norman said:
Bombs and IED's are just as efficient if not more so.
Click to expand...

There have been only a few terror US based terror attacks and rampage killings that have successfully used a bomb to create a death toll in the scale of the 10/1 event.

Murrah building OKC
The Bath School Disaster
Wall Street bombing (1920)
Los Angeles Times bombing (1910)
and a couple more, few of them recent.

Some of these used vehicle bombs and in others the death toll was mostly related to the resulting building fire.

Internationally, IEDs have been a very efficient killing tools. That may have something to do with things like markets and religious assemblies that tend to be the target. In the history of US based terrorism, they haven't been all that efficient.
 
noob said:
If they had a 2nd Amendment would we still be complaining about Kim Jong Un exercising his ‘right to bear arms’ right now?

Seems we’re pretty selective about what ‘arms’ refer to. And the ‘arms’ we need to truly fight back against government oppression bare very little resemblance to guns. And nobody is talking about making tanks, fighters, bombers, rockets and WMDs available to the citizenry. (or are they?)

This isn’t about a right to fight back against the government - It hasn’t been for a long time. It’s about personal prefence and culture - and people making money from gun sales. But if the GMAN is truly coming for you - you know the arms you have legal access to won’t make a dent of a difference.
Click to expand...

I think a major lesson from Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq is that overwhelming military power doesn't necessarily translate into victory. Guerilla warfare and small arms tactics can successfully erode the will to fight.
 
Cooter said:
Lose control much? Jeez man, have a seat and cool off.
Click to expand...
No loss of control there. I made a very clear statement about your post. You don't have to like it or pay much attention to it.
 
Caramon13 said:
But, you DO have an alternative then no? Then it's not a need. It's a commodity, an alternative and a choice.
Click to expand...
LOL People need to eat. Hunting can supply the protein to fulfill that need. Guns are one way to hunt. Yes guns are needed.

I'll tell you a little story about a guy who was busted for poaching. Do you know what the Game&Fish agent said? He said no one that is providing for a family that needs meat will ever be arrested for poaching...this guy was just killing for sport so he got arrested. The locals that I worked with echoed the Game&Fish agent's story.

Now just try to tell me about "need". I'll remind you about traditions of folks living off the land here long before the United States existed. Those traditions continued through the formation of the nation and they continue today. You may try to ignore it. Your ignorance doesn't make them go away.
 
Clark1961 said:
No loss of control there. I made a very clear statement about your post. You don't have to like it or pay much attention to it.
Click to expand...
It wasn't very clear to me. It was mostly non-sensical which is why I assumed you lost control.
 
Cooter said:
It wasn't very clear to me. It was mostly non-sensical which is why I assumed you lost control.
Click to expand...
Are you always passive-aggressive when people don't agree with you or they call you out on your bad behavior?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top