Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 4:07:34 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And yet, even with the "militia argument" addressed by a member of the highest court of the land, you continue to pursue an argument that has no legs. [Etc]


Another long, long post that doesn't address the point I was making, while freely and openly admitting that you see only 'Generic British arguments'. JLF, you are arguing with yourself, alone. Sorry - this is too tedious.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 4:18:31 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And yet, even with the "militia argument" addressed by a member of the highest court of the land, you continue to pursue an argument that has no legs. [Etc]


Another long, long post that doesn't address the point I was making, while freely and openly admitting that you see only 'Generic British arguments'. JLF, you are arguing with yourself, alone. Sorry - this is too tedious.



Have you not repeatedly stated that bama's and my assertion of what costitutes a militia is wrong?

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 4:57:36 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		Perhaps you could argue with me, rather than Brits in general, or non-gun-supporters in general, in the future, JLF. For the present, though, I've run out of interest in the subject of guns, I'm afraid.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 7:33:19 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Perhaps you could argue with me, rather than Brits in general, or non-gun-supporters in general, in the future, JLF. For the present, though, I've run out of interest in the subject of guns, I'm afraid.



It would be nice if the rest of the world would get the same feelings.



_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 8:29:49 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Of course there are other statements that need to be looked at:

quote:

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.


Your post implies that scalia said this...is it true that scalia said this?


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 8:41:13 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually, unorganized militias have someone in authority as disignated by the governor or who ever called for volunteers.

Actually you are half right. The unorganized militia is as you say orgainzed. The word unorganized is meant to distinguish it from the organized militia created by the dick act. It is the govornor who appoints the officers in the unorganized militia and not some local yahoo who calls for volunteers.

What otter and the brit are trying to do is twist everything so it is anti private gun.

That is pretty unobservant. One is pro private ownership of guns and the other is not.

This is nothing new.

I happen to belong to the Texas State militia, but then there is another rub, I am subject to a nice little rule about lending communication assistence in the advent of a emergency, by virtue of my Ham radio license.


That is a rule of your radio license and nothing to do with the militia. That you are licensed to operate a transmitter I should think would be an asset to your militia unit. Consider though that you hold your radio license from the fed and should the fed declare any individual militia to be a terrorist organization your license would of course be subject to review


All but two members of the local ham club are members of the militia, now granted one is blind, the other is a parapalygic.

While we dont "drill" as some would have us do, we do regularly participate in local emergency drills.

Drilling is one of the requirements of the unorganized militia now isn't it?

And to be honest, there is a funny thing about com centers in an emergency, that happens to be the location where most relief supplies are sent, emergency aid stations are set up, and personally, it makes sense for the "volunteers" to be armed.

Why does it make sense for non security people to be armed?

And admittedly, some of the weapons in my personal "arsenal of anarchy" have even the two local swat teams outgunned.

Are you sugesting that we take up a collection for the swat team?

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 8:43:30 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: jlf1961

A couple of prerequisites are required, even in the modern definition.

Weapons, ammo, clothing, basic supplies are provided by the militia member.

The state, at its disgression, can provided compensation for daily living expenses, and ammo, but most dont.


The one you are in the state law requires them to pay you about $120 a day isn't it? Not bad wages for walking around acting importat.

Finally, under the current law, the militia may be as local as county, i.e a sheriff calling for volunteers to search for a missing child, actually qualifies.

Not according to the laws that structure the texas state militia.

Would the militia be called up to fight federal troops today, doubtful, but then there are laws preventing the deployment of active duty troops inside the US.

Yet the govornor of your state and the commander of the texas state militia issued orders for his commanders to keep an eye on the "jade helm" cuz ya know that fella in the white house with the big ears may want to take over texas and sell it to the muslims.



(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 8:49:00 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: BamaD

However the writtings of the people who wrote it, as to it's acctual meaning are not full of holes private ownership, quite the contrary they explicitly state it.


Perhaps you could help us out with some of the writing of folks like george mason, patrick henry, thomas jefferson and james madison who spoke directly to the question of private gun ownership and the why of it? Tell us how these slave owners pointed out that if the army was the only ones with guns what would compel the slaves to do anything but eat lunch? You will find them in the anti-federalist papers and not on the history channel.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 9:20:26 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BamaD

However the writtings of the people who wrote it, as to it's acctual meaning are not full of holes private ownership, quite the contrary they explicitly state it.


Perhaps you could help us out with some of the writing of folks like george mason, patrick henry, thomas jefferson and james madison who spoke directly to the question of private gun ownership and the why of it? Tell us how these slave owners pointed out that if the army was the only ones with guns what would compel the slaves to do anything but eat lunch? You will find them in the anti-federalist papers and not on the history channel.


Tell us why Adams, who was strongly anti slavery, demanded an individual right to bear arms. I will not help you with your absurd notion that the 2nd was a pro-slavery amendment. Slave hunters used firearms, so did abolitionists.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 10:55:24 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
The Founding Fathers on Arms

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 11:08:07 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Uh, no. Those people in the Federalist papers and around and about speaking are horseshit insofar as 2nd amendment is concerned. It was not something that was generally understood when the federalist papers were written to convince New York to ratify the Constitution in June of 1788.

June 8, 1789 is when the bill of rights was introduced in the house. Didn't come out of the Senate till September or so. The Philidelphia Federal Gazette, and Tenche Coxe who wrote that bit on the 18th are not among our founding fathers.


Their understanding of the purpose of the second amendment is about as solid as your understanding of the purpose of Obamacare.

Time, as we understand it, does not flow from present to past. (Al Einstein) and so your quotes are not quite what they purport to be.

Now Washinton says some blather on owning guns, and by god that is as if from heaven, but Obama says Sanctuary Cities are ok, and you are going to say that is unconstitutional? Big doubts about not only your headpipes, but your veracity on anything.


Back to the future was yesterday.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/22/2015 11:11:36 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 11:48:47 AM   
ReMakeYou


Posts: 147
Joined: 1/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

*quotes*


Only a handful of those use the word "guns". Most use the broader "arms". And as one of your posts a bit upthread already pointed out, there is plenty of military hardware that ordinary citizens are not allowed to own. The situation when the second amendment was written, when a citizen could match the equipment of a state-supported soldier, are long gone. Never bring a gun to a tank fight.

Away from second amendment generalities and back to the original post's point, it actually has a core of a very good idea. With some minor retooling, making something like reserves membership mandatory for gun ownership might not be that bad a thing. You'd teach people how to de-escalate situations, both verbally and with hand-to-hand self defense, so that they have options other than escalating straight to deadly force. Trained superiors could help spot people with mental health issues, and offer help well before the issue became serious. The time demand of keeping your skills up would provide a low barrier to ownership, but that should be enough to dissuade the most careless owners; poorly secured guns have a long history of turning into illegal guns. And notably, the realities of having to drill with others will stop many of the most dramatic attacks. I wonder how many school shootings could've been stopped if the people involved had healthier (or in many cases, extant) social groups and/or adult role models.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 1:06:00 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Plus, the citizens were the military, the timely use of volunteers, and thats what they envisioned, they were nearly to a man dead set against standing armies like those of Europe who (one country in particular here) caused some hard feelings, and led to a little dustup and this sort of scribbling.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to ReMakeYou)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 1:52:05 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ReMakeYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

*quotes*


Only a handful of those use the word "guns". Most use the broader "arms". And as one of your posts a bit upthread already pointed out, there is plenty of military hardware that ordinary citizens are not allowed to own. The situation when the second amendment was written, when a citizen could match the equipment of a state-supported soldier, are long gone. Never bring a gun to a tank fight.

Away from second amendment generalities and back to the original post's point, it actually has a core of a very good idea. With some minor retooling, making something like reserves membership mandatory for gun ownership might not be that bad a thing. You'd teach people how to de-escalate situations, both verbally and with hand-to-hand self defense, so that they have options other than escalating straight to deadly force. Trained superiors could help spot people with mental health issues, and offer help well before the issue became serious. The time demand of keeping your skills up would provide a low barrier to ownership, but that should be enough to dissuade the most careless owners; poorly secured guns have a long history of turning into illegal guns. And notably, the realities of having to drill with others will stop many of the most dramatic attacks. I wonder how many school shootings could've been stopped if the people involved had healthier (or in many cases, extant) social groups and/or adult role models.

You are right, firearms are a subset of arms.
And as for the thread idea weeding out the crazies, they are the last people it would discourage.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to ReMakeYou)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 3:14:49 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ReMakeYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

*quotes*


Only a handful of those use the word "guns". Most use the broader "arms". And as one of your posts a bit upthread already pointed out, there is plenty of military hardware that ordinary citizens are not allowed to own. The situation when the second amendment was written, when a citizen could match the equipment of a state-supported soldier, are long gone. Never bring a gun to a tank fight.

Away from second amendment generalities and back to the original post's point, it actually has a core of a very good idea. With some minor retooling, making something like reserves membership mandatory for gun ownership might not be that bad a thing. You'd teach people how to de-escalate situations, both verbally and with hand-to-hand self defense, so that they have options other than escalating straight to deadly force. Trained superiors could help spot people with mental health issues, and offer help well before the issue became serious. The time demand of keeping your skills up would provide a low barrier to ownership, but that should be enough to dissuade the most careless owners; poorly secured guns have a long history of turning into illegal guns. And notably, the realities of having to drill with others will stop many of the most dramatic attacks. I wonder how many school shootings could've been stopped if the people involved had healthier (or in many cases, extant) social groups and/or adult role models.


Sweet Jesus on a crutch, first, the reserves are part of the Federal military system, meaning subject to call up by the President, something the founding fathers had a problem with.

Second, and more to the point, the second was and still is, meant to keep private gun ownership just that.


As for "Never bring a gun to a tank fight." brother, you should have seen what the Mujaheddin did to T62's without military hardware.

The best quote dealing with the soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 80's by an Afghan rebel is "we are not afraid of their tanks, their helicopters on the other hand are different."

This statement, for the unenlightened, referred to the MI 21 Hind. The damn thing is a flying tank.

And the 76mm anti tank gun I referred to earlier, would not stop much in the way of modern armor, with the exception of the Bradley or maybe the striker.

But in the words of Burt Gummer, "a few household chemicals in the right proportions" can do wonders.

Or more to the point, why not visit a VA hospital and ask the guys about how an IED stopped their high tech tank/APC/ etc.

Evidently you have been living under a rock in the 1940's havent you?

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to ReMakeYou)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 3:41:40 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Sweet Jesus on a crutch, first, the reserves are part of the Federal military system, meaning subject to call up by the President, something the founding fathers had a problem with.


You might point that out with credible citations, because I can find nothing like that. Anywhere. And I have read a great deal of the founding fathers, their biographies, and auto-biographies.

see Hamilton in the Federalist #69.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 6:01:38 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: BamaD


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BamaD

However the writtings of the people who wrote it, as to it's acctual meaning are not full of holes private ownership, quite the contrary they explicitly state it.


Perhaps you could help us out with some of the writing of folks like george mason, patrick henry, thomas jefferson and james madison who spoke directly to the question of private gun ownership and the why of it? Tell us how these slave owners pointed out that if the army was the only ones with guns what would compel the slaves to do anything but eat lunch? You will find them in the anti-federalist papers and not on the history channel.


Tell us why Adams, who was strongly anti slavery, demanded an individual right to bear arms.


You have not established that john adams demanded an individual right to bear arms. So perhaps you might give us a cite for such. You have been mistaken before. Remember when you thought that the south left the union over something besides slavery and had the actual words posted for you from the actual documents of treason?



I will not help you with your absurd notion that the 2nd was a pro-slavery amendment.


It is hardly an absurd notion. It is the written record of those who created it. If you choose not to read the anti-federalist papers that would be your choice.




(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... - 10/22/2015 7:11:30 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BamaD


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BamaD

However the writtings of the people who wrote it, as to it's acctual meaning are not full of holes private ownership, quite the contrary they explicitly state it.


Perhaps you could help us out with some of the writing of folks like george mason, patrick henry, thomas jefferson and james madison who spoke directly to the question of private gun ownership and the why of it? Tell us how these slave owners pointed out that if the army was the only ones with guns what would compel the slaves to do anything but eat lunch? You will find them in the anti-federalist papers and not on the history channel.


Tell us why Adams, who was strongly anti slavery, demanded an individual right to bear arms.


You have not established that john adams demanded an individual right to bear arms. So perhaps you might give us a cite for such. You have been mistaken before. Remember when you thought that the south left the union over something besides slavery and had the actual words posted for you from the actual documents of treason?



I will not help you with your absurd notion that the 2nd was a pro-slavery amendment.


It is hardly an absurd notion. It is the written record of those who created it. If you choose not to read the anti-federalist papers that would be your choice.





I said Adams, not John.
That was Samuel
boston1775.blogspot.com/.../samuel-adams-and-slavery-public-man.htm

As for John
johnadamsinfo.com/john-adams-and-slavery/89/

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 78
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: And out of the box take on firearm regulations... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094