Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  gullivers-island  •  one month ago  •  358 comments

By:   David S. Cohen

Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment
“[It] needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact,” says constitutional law professor

This article from Rolling Stone was written six years ago. It could have been written yesterday and needs to be read today.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further  social   justice  and make our country a  more   inclusive  one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The  Second Amendment  must be repealed.

As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, it’s important to understand that they got it wrong — and got it wrong often. Unfortunately, in many instances, they enshrined those faults in the Constitution. For instance, most people don’t know it now, but  under the original document , Mitt Romney would be serving as President Obama’s vice president right now because he was the runner-up in the last presidential election. That part of the Constitution was fixed by the  Twelfth Amendment , which set up the system we currently have of the president and vice president running for office together.

Much more profoundly, the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race. They enshrined slavery into the Constitution in   multiple   ways , including taking the extreme step of   prohibiting the Constitution from being amended   to stop the slave trade in the country’s first 20 years. They also blatantly wrote racism into the Constitution by counting slaves as only   3/5 of a person   for purposes of Congressional representation. It took a bloody civil war to   fix these constitutional flaws   (and then another 150 years, and counting, to try to fix the societal consequences of them).

There are others flaws that have been fixed (such as about   voting   and   Presidential succession ), and still other flaws that have not yet been fixed (such as about   equal rights for women   and   land-based representation in the Senate ), but the point is the same — there is absolutely nothing permanently sacrosanct about the Founders and the Constitution. They were deeply flawed people, it was and is a flawed document, and when we think about how to make our country a   more perfect union , we must operate with those principles in mind.

In the face of yet  another mass shooting , now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It’s been done before (when the  Twenty-First Amendment  repealed prohibition in the  Eighteenth ), and it must be done now.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the   AR-15  assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.

Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of   one man killing 49  and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.

Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.

But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge   from the hate and fear that surrounds you . It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids   to kindergarten and first grade   so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket,   to go   anywhere   and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down  by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.

The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more.

Finally, if we take the gun-rights lobby at their word, the Second Amendment is a suicide pact. As they say over and over,   the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun . In other words, please the gun manufacturers by arming even   the vast majority of Americans who do not own a gun .

Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.

The gun-rights lobby’s mantra that more people need guns will lead to an obvious result — more people will be killed. We’d be walking down a road in which blood baths are a common occurrence, all because the Second Amendment allows them to be.

At this point, bickering about   the niceties of textual interpretation, whether the history of the amendment supports this view or that , and how legislators can solve this problem within the confines of the constitution is useless drivel that will lead to more of the same. We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founders’ view of the world ruling current day politics. A mass movement of those who will stand up and say that our founding document was wrong and needs to be changed. A mass movement of those who will thumb their nose at the NRA, an organization that is nothing more than the political wing of the country’s gun manufacturers, and say enough is enough.

The Second Amendment must be repealed, and it is the essence of American democracy to say so.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1  seeder  Gulliver    one month ago

It is time to get serious about repealing and replacing the Second Amendment.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Gulliver @1    one month ago
It is time to get serious about repealing and replacing the Second Amendment.

I'm really not sure a 230 year old law is actually the problem.

  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1    one month ago

It isn't.  A species of hominid that's been walking around for 250,000 years is the problem.

Our cousin is here from Australia for an extended visit, originally from Texas,

there are still issues with humans in Australia, but not many involve firearms

because they collected 90% of them and have strict registration regulations.

People, being the problem, still drink, shoot drugs, stab, beat and bludgeon each other

but their death rate from violence is 26% of the US.

Americans are 57 time more likely to suffer some form of gun violence.

Australian vs United States Crime Stats Compared (nationmaster.com)

Quite a difference.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1    one month ago
I'm really not sure a 230 year old law is actually the problem.

I disagree. I think the fact that it's 230 years old IS at the root of the problem. Those laws were written when we had muskets. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @1.1.1    one month ago
  Australia United States
Population: 25,687,000               329,484,000

That could also have something to do with the issue as well, they do have a heck of a lot less people to contend with .

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.4  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.2    one month ago
when we had muskets. 

High-tech, military weapons of war.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  squiggy @1.1.4    one month ago

High-tech, military weapons of war.

At the time, they were. 

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.6  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.3    one month ago

I don't think you are working the problem properly.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.6    one month ago

 you are welcome to think whatever you want .

 
 
 
shona1
Junior Participates
1.1.8  shona1  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.3    one month ago

Morning Mark....yes we are only 26 million but we also have a very different mind set when it comes to guns...

Our histories are quite similar in many respects, but over the years we have taken very different paths when it comes to guns.

The Port Arthur massacre was enough for us, shocked and rocked this country to its knees as I have said before..

Not saying it can't happen here again, far from it but we have done and tried everything that is practical and in our power to try and ensure it doesn't..

We have guns, we are very well armed in fact.. actually have more guns in society now than before Port Arthur...yes some types of guns are banned there was no need for them or warranted....so in that respect we have hopefully succeeded...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.2    one month ago
I disagree. I think the fact that it's 230 years old IS at the root of the problem. Those laws were written when we had muskets. 

How would you like it rewritten?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MrFrost @1.1.5    one month ago

High-tech, military weapons of war.

At the time, they were. 

and the argument the people who wrote the amendment couldn't foretell that there would be changes and advancements is total bull, at the time of the writing , a breechloading firearm existed , the Fergeson gun  used by the british so they knew it was coming and what was possible , they were also aware of puckle guns , a crude and rudimentary form of machinegun ,  in effect . they knew advancements and innovations would take place , thus they also left 2 mechanisms to change the document and amendments , the people and government have just been too lazy to attempt to use either unless forced to .

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.11  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.5    one month ago

“At the time, they were.”

Exactly. Thank you. And it follows today.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  shona1 @1.1.8    one month ago
but over the years we have taken very different paths when it comes to guns.

Indeed shona:

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  squiggy @1.1.11    one month ago

Exactly. Thank you. And it follows today.

So convince me that an AR-15 or almost any other modern weapon of war compares to a....musket. They both shoot a projectile, that's really where the similarities end. 

Put it another way. 

How many people would be killed in a mass shooting with a musket vs. an AR-15? 

Pretty simple really. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.1.14  MrFrost  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.3    one month ago

That could also have something to do with the issue as well, they do have a heck of a lot less people to contend with .

Cool, now to China vs. the United States. China has had ONE school shooting since 2009 and I dunno, just a guess, but pretty sure they have more than 329 million people. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.13    one month ago
Pretty simple really. 

Simple and irrelevant.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.13    one month ago
So convince me that an AR-15 or almost any other modern weapon of war compares to a....musket.

Why do you want to be convinced?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  shona1 @1.1.8    one month ago
but we also have a very different mind set when it comes to guns...

A point that does not get made often enough.

The Port Arthur massacre was enough for us

Another point that does not get made often enough.  Port Arthur marked a change in the national conscience of Australians.    Americans have not had that moment yet.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.18  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  shona1 @1.1.8    one month ago

good evening ( it is my evening) , but also a good morning to you as well, i missed wishing the commonwealth folks a happy victoria day the other day so here it is anyway late as it is .

 i would tend to agree with most of what you said for AUS but the real differences are the number of people involved ( easier to get agreement and consensus with smaller groups ) that and in this country there are entirely any number of different mindsets to contend with  here you have some that are radically one way while you have others that are radically in the opposite direction and then you have those that are spread out over the middle from either end . and frankly i do not see any way that a discussion could be reached so that all parties are happy or content .

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.14    one month ago
Cool, now to China vs. the United States. China has had ONE school shooting since 2009

Cool, how many Uyghurs have we put into mass detention. sterilized , and murdered?

 
 
 
shona1
Junior Participates
1.1.20  shona1  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.12    one month ago

Morning drinker....

Yes you look back in history now and wonder....if only it was not written in the Amendment would things be different now??

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.21  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.13    one month ago
Put it another way.  How many people would be killed in a mass shooting with a musket vs. an AR-15?

Why is an AR-15 more dangerous than a pair of 9mm pistols?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.22  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MrFrost @1.1.14    one month ago

I really dont think there is any comparison between china and the US , one is a constitutional rrepresentative republic that uses the democratic method  still a form of democracy where the people hold the power by consent  and not the government , and the other is an authoritarian , dictatorship where all power is centered and held by the government and that power is wielded as the government sees fit .

But thats just my opinion of the comparison which in itself i think is flawed . just as the comparison of the US to AUS is flawed because of certain factors .

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.21    one month ago
Why is an AR-15 more dangerous than a pair of 9mm pistols

Bullet velocity.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  shona1 @1.1.20    one month ago

I imagine so.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.25  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.14    one month ago
China has had ONE school shooting since 2009

In China, the government takes care of murdering the people.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.1.26  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.17    one month ago
Americans have not had that moment yet.

About how many need to die in a mass shooting before we get there? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.1.27  MrFrost  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.16    one month ago

Why do you want to be convinced?

Left to right, top to bottom, follow the thread and you'll find the answers you seek. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.28  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.27    one month ago

It’s a quest.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.26    one month ago

Why do you think that is knowable?

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.30  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.9    one month ago
How would you like it rewritten?

I think that is an important question. Somebody needs to get a template amendment written that people could imagine voting for. Repeal and replace implies a viable replacement.

Is there a replacement YOU could imagine supporting?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.1.31  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.21    one month ago

Why is an AR-15 more dangerous than a pair of 9mm pistols?

Oh I'm sorry, I said musket. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.32  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.26    one month ago
About how many need to die in a mass shooting before we get there?

Great question.  Dunno.

But until we do, people aren't going to turn in their guns like they did in Australia.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Sparty On  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.30    one month ago
I think that is an important question.

It is an important question.     A big problem here is that few trust our current governments ability to draft such an amendment without going too far.

A very large, very large majority of such weapons are legally owned, operated and will never be involved in such criminality.    Blanket bans harshly punish law abiding citizens.    An oppression that is hard to accept for such citizens.    Most anti gunners here would happily throw the baby out with bath water and never look back.

A complete non starter for a lot of Americans.

A lot more than many think.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.34  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.7    one month ago

Both nations have millions and millions of people. Bot nations have urban and rural areas.

The point isn't that there are more gun killings in America than in Australia because America is larger. The point is that the rate per capita is higher.

But the USA isn't actually the worst in the world. This article over at Wikipedia has a color coded map:

Just stay the heck out of Mexico and Brazil. Dayum.

What on earth is wrong with our hemisphere? 

 
 
 
shona1
Junior Participates
1.1.35  shona1  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.32    one month ago

Arvo Jack...every year we still have a voluntary gun Amnesty here..no questions asked and take them to the local cop shop...

And they still collect thousands and thousands of guns...they are then destroyed and melted down etc...

People just don't want them, have no use for them or something happens here or overseas and people want to off load them.

My brother is a shooter and follows all the regulations etc and we think nothing of it..he has a gun safe, concreted and bolted to the floor..keys in seperate location...cops come into the house check all regulations are correct and that's it..stamp of approval...

No doubt many would freak out having cops come into your house to check over there, but here no one gives a rabbits (care)... it's the law and works well for us and we are happy with it....

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.36  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.1    one month ago
A species of hominid that's been walking around for 250,000 years is the problem.

And THAT is the problem that nobody want's to try to correct.  It's much easier to place blame on an inanimate object than it is to pay attention and communicate with those around us.  If you really have family and friends who genuinely care, they'll notice a difference in a persons demeanor and appearance.  A real friend or family member should be trying to help.  

After every one of these shootings it comes to light, all the failures of the people who were close to the shooter.  We don't know if a simple "Hey, how are you doing?" could have changed the situation because, it appears, nobody took the time to ask.  Nobody spoke up or tried to get that person help when they saw something wrong.  

Help doesn't always require law enforcement.  It could be a short conversation.  It could be done by taking that person, and weapons to a firing range.  Hell, it could be a simple hug that changes it.   

We are so wrapped up in our own lives that we neglect those around us.  None of us are any more important than the person next to us.  We aren't a community any more.  We've become a group of zombies only concerned with ourselves.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.37  Jack_TX  replied to  shona1 @1.1.35    one month ago

I've read about the Port Arthur incident and I've spoken with Aussie friends about it.

We have lots of folks over here who point to Australia as a great example of how gun control has worked.  What they completely ignore is how that incident changed the heart of a nation.  It doesn't work without that.

We've had those moments in our history.  Times when we all came together in moments of unity.  Sept 11, 2001 was probably the most notable in the last 40 years or so.  You'll think this crazy, but the 1980 winter Olympic hockey victory over the old Soviet Union was a moment like that.  It literally changed American culture.

Until we have a moment like that over guns, none of these measures are going to work.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.38  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.30    one month ago
Is there a replacement YOU could imagine supporting?

I'll know it when I see it.  Please post some drafts.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.39  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.13    one month ago
So convince me that an AR-15 or almost any other modern weapon of war compares to a....musket.

It is the peoples' counterweight to government overreach. Arms include pitchforks and ax handles. The people were allowed to bear the sophisticated weapon of the day. The Supreme Court has held that 'arms' include bearable arms of a future design.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.40  Ronin2  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.19    one month ago

You have that wrong, here it would be anyone that had the temerity to vote for Trump.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.41  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.31    one month ago

So you can't answer the question.  The answer is really pretty simple.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.42  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.3    one month ago

512

This compares countries per 100,000 population. Pretty stark. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.43  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.17    4 weeks ago

Port Arthur marked a change in the national conscience of Australians.    Americans have not had that moment yet.

Yes they have.  Over 80% of Americans, in the last survey I could find, supported some gun controls like simple gun registration.  It is the republicans that refuse to listen, too busy stuffing the NRA's money into their ears.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.44  Ozzwald  replied to  Dulay @1.1.42    4 weeks ago

This compares countries per 100,000 population. Pretty stark. 

re-number-foam-hand-text-white-background-52777798.jpg  61vZH2+3eXL._SY500_.jpg

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.1.45  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.31    4 weeks ago

If he has to ask, he knows little about firearm capabilities.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.46  cjcold  replied to  Dulay @1.1.42    4 weeks ago

WE'RE #1! WE'RE #1! WE'RE #1!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.47  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.43    4 weeks ago
Yes they have. 

They absolutely haven't.  Australians lined up around the block to turn in their guns.  Americans are buying more.  

We're not talking about some Millennial liberal version of "conscience" where people go around shouting about things or "raising awareness" or some other feeble shit like that.  We're talking about a change of conscience where huge numbers of people intentionally change behavior.   Permanently.  That hasn't begun to happen.

Over 80% of Americans, in the last survey I could find, supported some gun controls like simple gun registration.  It is the republicans that refuse to listen, too busy stuffing the NRA's money into their ears.

Which survey?  

Over 40% of American households have a gun.  Most of those people do not trust the US Govt to be remotely sensible when it comes to gun regulation and the current ongoing rhetoric justifies their skepticism.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.48  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.47    4 weeks ago
They absolutely haven't.  Australians lined up around the block to turn in their guns.  Americans are buying more.

You're taking it to extremes.  Americans overwhelmingly approve of gun registration.  The only thing preventing this are NRA bought and paid for republicans.

Which survey?

Look it up.  I went through a number of them and am approximating.  Otherwise I would have linked it.

Over 40% of American households have a gun.

And feel those guns should have a registration process.

Most of those people do not trust the US Govt to be remotely sensible when it comes to gun regulation and the current ongoing rhetoric justifies their skepticism.

Bullshit!  Most republicans feel that way, because they are constantly being told that democrats will come for their guns.  Happens every time a democrat is elected to POTUS.  But here's a surprise for you, none of them have...  In fact, there is only 1 President that has ever broached the subject of taking away people's guns, and Trump is not a democrat.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.49  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.48    4 weeks ago
Over 40% of American households have a gun.
And feel those guns should have a registration process.

Yep,  here's one survey that shows a 70% approval for having all guns registered with the police.  Granted this poll is from 2017, but it's there none the less Jack_TX.  That's not a proposal I agree with but Oz is not making up facts.  

Please say whether you favor or oppose each of the following. [RANDOM ORDER].
Favor Oppose No opinion
% % %
Requiring background checks for all gun purchases 96 4 *
Enacting a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales 75 24 1
Requiring all privately-owned guns to be registered with the police 70 29 1
Oct. 5-11, 2017; * Less than 0.5%
GALLUP
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.50  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.48    4 weeks ago
You're taking it to extremes.

By pointing out facts?

  Americans overwhelmingly approve of gun registration.  The only thing preventing this are NRA bought and paid for republicans.

The primary thing preventing it is the very well substantiated fear that any registration initiative will be used in the future to further suppress the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Look it up.  I went through a number of them and am approximating.  Otherwise I would have linked it.

OK... so some nameless arcane data set that only you have amalgamated conveniently confirms this point you want to make.  You could have just said "God spoke to me".  It would be as credible.

And feel those guns should have a registration process.

That is definitely not how that math works.

Bullshit!  Most republicans feel that way,

So....not actually "bullshit" at all.  See...when you use the word "bullshit", you're not supposed to immediately follow it with an endorsement of the statement you've just described.  

because they are constantly being told that democrats will come for their guns.

You don't actually know any of these people IRL, do you?

  Happens every time a democrat is elected to POTUS.

Sure.  That's how brainless batshit extremists work.  When a Democrat is in the WH, they're going to come for your guns.  When a Republican is in the WH, we're living in the Handmaid's Tale.  There is a list of approved ridiculous accusations the extremist morons in opposition always repeat.  It's a short list, because they're stupid and can't remember a long one.

Now...none of that changes the fact that gun sales in the USA are up , and the number of households owning a gun has jumped dramatically in the last couple of years.   We are NOT having a national moment of remorse about our gun ownership.  Quite the opposite.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.51  Jack_TX  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.49    4 weeks ago

Interesting survey.  On the one hand there is support for gun registration, on the other hand people think more guns = better safety.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.52  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.50    4 weeks ago
By pointing out facts?

No by going straight to taking away guns from people.  I'm am, and have been, talking about gun registration.  Which I have stated over and over again.

So....not actually "bullshit" at all.

Wow.... 

You stated, "Most of those people do not trust the US Govt".  I pointed out that most republicans do not trust the govt, not most people.  So yes, your claim of "most people" is bullshit.

You don't actually know any of these people IRL, do you?

Thank you for asking instead of claiming I don't.  The answer is yes, I do.  I have a friend I work with that is a devoted Trumper, and a number of family members that believe in the whole crap of republicans being better fiscally, and democrats just wanting to raise taxes.  I have even provided them with documented facts showing those claims are not true, but the refuse to acknowledge anything outside their predetermined prejudices.

That's how brainless batshit extremists work.  When a Democrat is in the WH, they're going to come for your guns.  When a Republican is in the WH, we're living in the Handmaid's Tale.

Very true.  However, no democrats have taken any steps to taking away people's guns, BUT republicans HAVE taken steps to take away citizens (especially women and minorities) rights.  So, there you go.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.53  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.52    4 weeks ago
You stated, " Most of those people do not trust the US Govt". 

Yes.  " Those people " being the gun owners we've been talking about

I pointed out that most republicans do not trust the govt, not most people .

I never said "most people".   I said "most of those people". Gun owners are majority Republican.  So again... " those people " do not trust the US Govt. on gun regulation.  

And you can't really blame them with idiots like Beto running his mouth about "coming for your guns".   

The answer is yes, I do.

How many of that group own guns and shoot regularly?

However, no democrats have taken any steps to taking away people's guns, BUT republicans HAVE taken steps to take away citizens (especially women and minorities) rights.

Democrats have taken numerous steps (or oversteps) to limit gun rights.  A California law was recently struck down in court DC had their ban struck down , and NYC is afraid their "proper cause" law is about to be. 

For the record, I'm not a gun owner.  If I had any confidence whatsoever that gun restrictions would be meaningfully helpful, I would support them.   But we're trying to treat cancer with a course of leeches and it's just not going to help.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.54  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.53    4 weeks ago
Yes.  " Those people " being the gun owners we've been talking about

Are you saying that all gun owners are republicans, or doubling down that ALL PEOPLE distrust government?  Either way, please provide evidentiary links to support that statement.

Gun owners are majority Republican

Well there you go, one more line down and you explained what you were saying.  Along with the link to support your claim of government distrust, please include a link to show that republicans are the vast majority of gun owners.  Note: whether they have 1 or a hundred guns, they still count as 1 person.

I await your links.

How many of that group own guns and shoot regularly?

Excuse me while I move the goal posts back to where they started....  Okay then.

The person I work with has 3 guns, I don't care when he shot them last.  Family members are avid hunters, I know they each have at least 1 hunting rifle each, 1 shotgun each, and 1 hand gun each, because I have seen them.  I have not asked for a full inventory from them, so you will have to settle for " at least ".

Democrats have taken numerous steps (or oversteps) to limit gun rights.  A  California law was recently struck down in court  .   DC had their ban struck down  , and  NYC is afraid their "proper cause" law  is about to be. 

Sorry, but limiting the ability to purchase guns is not TAKING AWAY THEIR RIGHTS.  Just to clarify:

California law was to restrict ownership to only adults 21 yoa or older.

DC was not a law, it was a civil suit.  DC was prohibiting gun ownership and registration in ways that did not comply with their own law.  A DC special policeman applied for a gun registration and was denied without a legal reason.

NYC is nothing about owning guns, their law is about carrying a concealed weapon and requiring citizens to have a good reason to need to carry one, or ""proper cause".  Gun lobby is suing because they want anyone to be able to carry concealed for any reason at all, or even no reason.

And 2 of those laws were struck down, so they have not eliminated anyone's rights. 

But while you are claiming that, while Roe v Wade is still the law of the land, can you now admit that every republican run state is taking away a women's CONSTITUTION RIGHT to get an abortion?  Not only are they making it harder (which is NOT eliminating the right), they are outright eliminating the right for a women based on a spurious time frame.

If I had any confidence whatsoever that gun restrictions would be meaningfully helpful, I would support them.

Would you really?

This is what happened when 3 nations that experienced mass shootings did something about it

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.55  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.54    4 weeks ago
Are you saying that all gun owners are republicans,

This is idiotic.  I find it fascinating that you left it in your post...even after you realized it was idiotic.  

I await your links.

The idea that gun owners are majority Republican is obvious to a degree that nobody remotely familiar with the topic would ever question the fact.   But as your exposure apparently consists of a sample of a singular person you know at work, here you go. 

• Gun ownership, by party affiliation U.S. 2021 | Statista

Key facts about Americans and guns | Pew Research Center

As for government mistrust among Republicans, I refer you to your own comments in 1.1.48 where you said "most Republicans feel that way".  

Sorry, but limiting the ability to purchase guns is not TAKING AWAY THEIR RIGHTS.

I think you'll find it is.  I think you'll find the courts also agree it is.

California law was to restrict ownership to only adults 21 yoa or older.

Which limited the gun rights of 18-20 year-olds.  We can compare this to abortion since you brought it up.  Interesting that you seem to see the difference between "limiting" a right and "eliminating" a right when they are rights you want to preserve.    If Indiana (for example) enacted a law setting the minimum abortion age at 21, would you view that as "taking away rights"?  

DC  was not a law, it was a civil suit.  DC was prohibiting gun ownership and registration in ways that did not comply with their own law.  A DC special policeman applied for a gun registration and was denied without a legal reason.

DC law prohibited the carrying of unlicensed firearms and then prohibited licensing handguns.  Thus limiting the rights of handgun owners.  Which is why the Court struck down the law.

NYC  is nothing about owning guns, their law is about carrying a concealed weapon and requiring citizens to have a good reason to need to carry one, or ""proper cause".  Gun lobby is suing because they want anyone to be able to carry concealed for any reason at all, or even no reason.

Gun rights include more than just purchase rights.  

I'm not sure why you don't seem to want to admit that gun laws limit gun rights.  Isn't that the whole point of them?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.56  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.55    4 weeks ago
Gun rights include more than just purchase rights.

Then 5 year olds should be able to purchase assault rifles in your opinion?  All age restrictions in the laws are not Constitutional?

2nd Amendment is not absolute, which you would know if you read it.  It allows limits and conditions to gun ownership.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.56    4 weeks ago
Then 5 year olds should be able to purchase assault rifles in your opinion?

Dude, he said NOTHING of the sort.

SMH

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.58  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.48    4 weeks ago
"Bullshit!  Most republicans feel that way, because they are constantly being told that democrats will come for their guns.  Happens every time a democrat is elected to POTUS.  But here's a surprise for you, none of them have...  In fact, there is only 1 President that has ever broached the subject of taking away people's guns, and Trump is not a democrat."
What was that you were just saying Oz?

'I Can Do Whatever I want with my guns': GOP lawmaker pulls out handguns during House hearing on gun control

Candy Woodall
Fri, June 3, 2022, 11:49 AM
WASHINGTON – Florida Congressman Greg Steube pulled out multiple handguns during a House Judiciary Committee hearing  Thursday aimed at curbing mass shootings.

The Republican congressman appeared by video conference from his Florida home, arguing that Democrats are trying to strip Americans' constitutional right to bear arms by restricting the ammunition they use.

"Don't let them fool you that they're not attempting to take away your ability to purchase handguns," Steube said. "They are using the magazine ban to do it."

The congressman said his Sig Sauer P365 XL comes with a 15-round magazine and would be banned if the Democrats' "Protecting Our Kids Act" passes. The congressman also said the Glock 19 would be banned.

He also displayed his Sig Sauer P226 and Sig Sauer 320.

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., holds up his own handgun as he speaks via videoconference as the House Judiciary Committee holds an emergency meeting to advance a series of Democratic gun control measures, called the Protecting Our Kids Act, in response to mass shootings in Texas and New York, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, June 2, 2022.

The display of weapons added to the tension of a legislative hearing packed with partisan and personal broadsides over an issue that has deeply divided Ameicans.

As Steube demonstrated his firearms, Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, of Texas, could be heard cutting into his speech.

"I hope the gun is not loaded," she said.

Steube sharply responded: "I'm at my house. I can do whatever I want with my guns.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.59  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.56    3 weeks ago
Then 5 year olds should be able to purchase assault rifles in your opinion?

Continuing the whole "lead with an idiotic misrepresentation" theme, I see.  Well...in for a penny in for a pound, I suppose.

  All age restrictions in the laws are not Constitutional?

 Do cite me indicating that I hold such an opinion. 

2nd Amendment is not absolute, which you would know if you read it.  

The wording of the amendment itself actually is absolute, which you would know if you read it.  Or if you had any clue at all about the Constitution.  

It allows limits and conditions to gun ownership.  

Those limitations to the amendment have actually come through various court cases.  Kinda like how abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, but Roe v Wade made it legal based on the 14th Amendment. 

In the case of gun rights, the Court has upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and a few others.  The Court has obviously also ruled against various other gun restrictive laws.

So obviously the right to bear arms is not absolute, just as the right to free speech is not absolute, nor is the right to privacy, the right to assemble or any other right.   

This does not get us any closer to some pixie dust utopia where Americans voluntarily surrender their guns, nor does it refute the idea that most gun-owners trust the US govt to sensibly regulate guns any further than they can throw an Abrams tank.

We're not going to get people to register their guns while we're threatening to take them away.  That's just foolishly naive.

 

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.60  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.38    3 weeks ago

John Paul Stevens took a crack at it:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

And he justified it in terms of clarifying the original intent of the amendment:

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.61  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.60    3 weeks ago

still need an amendment to add those 5 words , think it will pass the ratification process and get 38 states to ratify ? or will 13 throw the whole thing in the trash can ?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.62  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.61    3 weeks ago

Never happen but perhaps they could concentrate on filling up the shelves with baby formula or lowering gas prices ......

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.63  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.61    3 weeks ago

Amendments don't pass over night. The first step is getting language that a movement can coalesce around. The brilliance of Justice Stevens proposal is that it is narrowly focused on clarifying the original intent.

Other people start talking about the goals of a rewrite without putting anything into writing. One could imagine a rewritten second amendment running several pages long. Justice Stevens just adds five words to the original text.

Like you say, the political will isn't there for a rewrite of the Second Amendment right now. The political will to ban assault weapons isn't there right now even though there is nothing in the Heller ruling that would prevent that from happening. The only thing standing in the way is politicians who are either afraid of the NRA or loving the money they get from the NRA.

Political polling has shown that 64% of registered voters either strongly support or somewhat support banning assault weapons. That's a fairly strong mandate.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.64  Dulay  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.63    3 weeks ago
Political polling has shown that 64% of registered voters either strongly support or somewhat support banning assault weapons. That's a fairly strong mandate.

But NOT strong enough to do so. Oh, and that 64% is not a mandate for altering the 2nd Amendment. 

The issue in today's world is that 3/4 of the states can't agree on which direction the sun rises. 

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.65  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Dulay @1.1.64    3 weeks ago

You don't need to get rid of the Second Amendment to ban assault weapons.

You didn't need to do it in 1989 and you don't need to do it now. What you need is congress to pass a law that reflects the will of the people.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.66  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.63    3 weeks ago
The only thing standing in the way is politicians who are either afraid of the NRA or loving the money they get from the NRA.

Could be that , or they wish to be re elected . might want to research how many that went along with the 94 AWB , actually got re elected ....and the 94 AWB didnt actually "ban " anything , people that owned that continued to , those that bought new , bought something that didnt meet all the criteria for the feeble definition , i built my own during the AWB, and it was NOT an AW because it didnt meet the definition , all i had to do is leave enough cosmetic properties off and it was "Ban compliant " meaning , it didnt meet the definition to be banned . 

All that ban did actually is increase the cost and price on resale .

As for how many you say want AW banned ? i just saw another poll that says the opposite and in the 90 percentile percentage wise in the OTHER direction. thankfully i dont live by polls . i will make up my own mind for myself .

We also have to agree to disagree on what the 2nds actual origional intent was . i seem to remember that  Lexington and Concord, was about the banning of powder and shot , that was the intent , to seize those things the colonists needed to defend themselves on the then "frontier ".. the french and their one time indian allies were still acting like a bunch of modern day hoodrats and gangstas  even IF the french government had been driven out .

So our war of independance started over a governments actions( the british government )  to institute "gun control" leaving the "government" in control of its "subjects ". even if that was not the ONLY reason to decide for independance . pretty big contributing factor in my view though .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.67  Dulay  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.65    3 weeks ago
You don't need to get rid of the Second Amendment to ban assault weapons.

I know. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.68  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.66    3 weeks ago
All that ban did actually is increase the cost and price on resale .

You mean other than lower mass murders for a decade right? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.69  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.1.68    3 weeks ago

“By some definitions, for example, mass shootings declined in the United States during the period of the federal ban, but because mass shootings remain, at least in a statistical sense, relatively rare, and because rates of mass shootings are highly variable from year to year, there are methodological challenges to reliably detecting even fairly strong effects for these laws.”

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.70  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.69    3 weeks ago

As you can see, only 1999 was an outlier in that decade. That is the year of Columbine and multiple other school shootings. 

512

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.71  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.1.70    3 weeks ago

Yes, I see 1999.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.72  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.71    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.73  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @1.1.68    3 weeks ago

nope , columbine happened right smack dab in the middle of it all , no ars used there ,many of the school shootings were still done without any ARs or anything even remotely considered an AW by the ban  in sight .

 so tell me again what the ban did? the congressional report they decided to not renew it on , stated it had NO effect on crime . 

 but lets make this simpler for the lickspittles ,until criminals and those that commit crime are taken under control, you know those people that wont follow any of the laws being proposed , many and myself included , are not giving up Shit , if these things are the tools Police and LEO need to confront those criminals , i think myself and many others will just hold on to what we have , until after none of the criminals can get them , until then , i tell grabbers to go piss in the wind .

 so non compliance and non co-operation , has its own little quality , what you going to do? send someone with a GUN ? Custer mean anything? i bet it does to whomever you THINK you can send , lord knows it wont be any of the cheechaulkers squalling about it now . IF it was left for them to do themselves , it would already be over .

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.74  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.66    3 weeks ago
i seem to remember that  Lexington and Concord

The founding fathers seemed to remember it well enough to specify that militias be well regulated.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.75  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.74    3 weeks ago

What did “well regulated” mean in the 18th Century?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.76  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.75    3 weeks ago

Didnt realize Metamucil was around back then...

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.77  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.75    3 weeks ago

It meant what it quickly shaped up to be: official state militias created by state laws.

It means what the Federalist Papers described:

The year before the US Constitution was ratified , The Federalist Papers detailed the founders ' paramount vision of the militia in 1787. [4] [5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to "organize, arm, and discipline" this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government . [6] [7 ]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.78  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.77    3 weeks ago

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see “well regulated” defined there.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.79  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.78    3 weeks ago

Do you suck at synonyms?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.80  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.79    3 weeks ago

Does that mean that it isn’t here?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.81  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.73    3 weeks ago
nope , columbine happened right smack dab in the middle of it all , no ars used there ,many of the school shootings were still done without any ARs or anything even remotely considered an AW by the ban  in sight .

First of all, Columbine occurred on April 20, 1999, so WTF are you saying 'nope' about Mark? 

Secondly, I didn't say that ARs were used @ Columbine so your comment is a strawman. 

so tell me again what the ban did? the congressional report they decided to not renew it on , stated it had NO effect on crime. 

I didn't tell you anything in the first place Mark, I posted an IMAGE which speaks for itself. 

Oh and BTFW Mark, the vast majority of the mass murderers were NOT 'criminals'...until they took their legal weapon and used it to murder people. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.82  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.81    3 weeks ago

They just make up this garbage bullshit as they go along.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.83  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.75    3 weeks ago

Second Militia Act of 1792

United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/2nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 33 - Wikisource, the free online library

Signed by Washington 

Makes pretty clear what the founders thought was a Well Regulated Militia. 

Note, the act mandates those in the Militia purchase specific products.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.84  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.1.83    3 weeks ago

 Yes, well equipped and well regulated or proficient, well trained.  Are you suggesting some new, equivalent legislation?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.85  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.74    3 weeks ago

And we can debate what they meant when they said "regulated" as well. but on that we will again have to agree to disagree , because unless either of us were alive and there , we can only debate .

being under regulations,ie rules and orders ,laws , is not the only definition they understood . regulated also meant , and still does mean , "to be the same " . 

How do i come to that conclusion?  i have read the militia acts passed by the different states and the then congress . most if not all give alist of thoings that those in the militia , were to have with then when they were called for militia service , the list was to make sure each member was outfitted the same . to do what they were called to do.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.86  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @1.1.81    3 weeks ago
Oh and BTFW Mark, the vast majority of the mass murderers were NOT 'criminals'...until they took their legal weapon and used it to murder people. 

This argument always makes me chuckle and shake my head , because those inclined for the banning of things , seldom think about the fact that those inclined to do harm or evil will ALWAYS use what they have at hand , meaning what they can legally obtain ,usually under the radar , to commit their atrosities . 

 The problem is not with what they can obtain , be it through legal OR illegal means there will always be a black market for any item that is banned  , the problem lies with the people that would commit such acts .

Now why do i think that the 94  AWB was an abject failure ? I will give asimple reason .

 The so called BAN , actually banned nothing . Those that had them got to keep them legally , any NEW ones according to the law , were supposedly BANNED if they fell under the definition the legislation provided

SO , the companies that made the products , started making the same products , but simply without the purely cosmetic attributes in the definition , such as a bayonette lug , or a heat shield over the forestock, they even decided to do away with colapsable stocks . yet individually all those cosmetic features in the definition were available  sold individually , and were able to be installed by the end customer if the customer so chose to have them .

I remember the congress critters that wrote and backed the law were so pissed off that the people and companies were "violating the "spirit" of the law  and as they claimed illegally.  What that said to me was , even though people were following the letter of the law , they were  violating what those that wrote the law , thought it meant . As Red from the 70s show said , bunch of dumb asses ..

Columbine happened in 99, the AWB being touted was inforce from 94 through 2004 when it sunsetted , right smack in the middle , as i said , it was not and did not have an effect on the situation or the outcome because the perps used other "legally obtainable firearms " to do their deed , even IF they may have obtained them illegally .

 I have often wondered , if the 94 AWB could not be passed back then without the grandfathering  clauses , or the sunsetting provision , what makes those that want to ban things think the more stringent proposals they have made even have a snowballs chance in hell?

 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.87  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.85    3 weeks ago

The left is hard wired to not let a good crisis go to waste so will continue to clutch their pearls through times like these.  

Meanwhile they all become the best gun salespeople ever.    The American people see right past their partisan nonsense and continue to chose to arm themselves in larger numbers each year, many for the first time in their lives.    A significantly large majority of whom do so legally and responsibly. 

Following the rules and regulations established for such purchases.    Such as filling out ATF form 4473, NICS background checks and fingerprinting where appropriate.

Rules and regulations ..... rules and regulations ......

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.88  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.85    3 weeks ago
because unless either of us were alive and there , we can only debate .

That's pretending that there aren't documents from the time which serve to clarify the intent of the constitution and bill of rights. The constitution was subject to heavy debate in the press and the federalist and anti-federalist papers make it clear what the thinking at the time was.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.89  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.88    3 weeks ago

So there was just as much debate and disagreement back then as there is today , some of it hinging of the simple definition of words and puctuation .

The more things change , the more they stay the same , as they say .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.90  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.86    3 weeks ago
This argument always makes me chuckle and shake my head , because those inclined for the banning of things , seldom think about the fact that those inclined to do harm or evil will ALWAYS use what they have at hand , meaning what they can legally obtain ,usually under the radar , to commit their atrosities .   The problem is not with what they can obtain , be it through legal OR illegal means there will always be a black market for any item that is banned  , the problem lies with the people that would commit such acts .

Well gee Mark, you sound like you're a 'we don't need no fucking laws' type of guy. 

These guys being 'above' the radar hasn't deterred them.

The less lethal the weapon, the more likely victims will escape and/or survive. Claiming that these 18 year old guys would pursue AR 15s through a black market is pure speculation. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.91  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @1.1.90    3 weeks ago

Actually am a , laws are fine if they actually do what they are suppose to and not waste peoples time kind of guy  and i also believe in enforcing the already existing laws on the books and not cut plea deals ..nothing i have heard so far , isnt already covered in or by some law already on the books .

Less lethal? ( shakes head and stifles a gawf) , all firearms are equally lethal, unless one is like a cat and can supposedly die more than once .

fact is people will pursue whatever they can get on the black market that does exactly the same thing, if they cannot get it legally ,and that is not speculation, and suitable substitutes are already , readily available that do cause just as much carnage as whats being discussed if not more  .

hell recent history already proves that as fact , booze was banned , people still got it , drugs were banned , didnt stop people from getting them .

 i just got word that daughter started contractions , so i will be gone a couple few days , i have a 4 hr road trip to get to her location . and IF she can hold out until after midnight , that means my new grand son will share a birthday with my father who passed . But we all know babies come on their own time schedule so patiance is a good thing. i just want healthy and whole .

 I have found out , waiting for grandkids , is a lot different than waiting for my own kids to be born , no need to get hysterical I actually pity my son in law , im expecting him to say he told the Dr to get the salad spoons man, he is already aggrivayed because he got her to Hosp, and they monitored for about an hr and sent her home until her water breaks   , as i said i learned they come when they are ready and not beforehand and each one is different  .  

 So here is to becoming a granpa (youngest at 2 calls me Pawpaw , i like that ) again ( 5th time )it likely will happen before i get there.

 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.92  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.91    3 weeks ago
Less lethal? ( shakes head and stifles a gawf) all firearms are equally lethal, unless one is like a cat and can supposedly die more than once.

'Gawf' that bullshit all you want. A 10/22 is NOT as lethal as an AR 15, 5.56.

Just stop. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.93  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.1.92    3 weeks ago

Well, we’re told by shotgun joe that neither are as lethal as a 9mm.    I guess those babies will blow a lung clean out.

Really scary!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.94  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @1.1.93    3 weeks ago

(false alarm still waiting )

Well joe is not exactly someone i would take firearms advice from or trust their firearms knowledge  anyway , anyone that thinks indiscriminantly firing a couple rounds in the dark at noises ,isnt the brightest bulb in the pack.

mentioning the 10/22 , is rather ironic since it would have been banned under the 94 AWB and was in a certain configuration., to be banned all one had to do is swap out the existing stock , for an aftermarket one that either folded or collaped , pick up some hi cap mags ( they even sold  and still sell hi cap drum mags BTW) the mentioned item uses a detatchable mag . 

The 94 sunsetted bill said nothing about  ammo size so it pretty much covered anything that shot , even the lowly .22LR.

Now is a .22LR as lethal as anything else ? it all depends on shot placement , it has been lethal enough to kill a Moose , just shot placement mattered . When i get ready to butcher and process either my steer or hogs , i use a .22 LR, i just know where to place the shot to drop them fast and humanely.

The lowly .22 is very good at dispatching , thin skinned varmints(humans BTW would be classified as thin skinned and light boned )  so its lethality is not in question really , it will depend on the situatiion it is used as to how lethal it is , used in a situation most mass shootings are occuring , close range and in your face , it is just as lethal as any other choice , oh i freely admit , survivability is slightly better , but that also depends on where on the body one is shot .

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.95  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.94    3 weeks ago
Well joe is not exactly someone i would take firearms advice from or trust their firearms knowledge  anyway , anyone that thinks indiscriminately firing a couple rounds in the dark at noises ,isn't the brightest bulb in the pack.

Illegal advice to his wife as well.  Turns out to be illegal in Wash DC to stick a shotgun outside your door and blast away into the night.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.96  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.95    3 weeks ago

well he isnt capt obvious , so there is that , one obviously doesnt just shoot into the night at sounds without thinking where those projectiles will land  in the end . but that is actually common sense , something that is in short supply and has been for a very long time in this country .

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.97  cjcold  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.60    3 weeks ago
A well regulated Militia

Unfortunately the only "well regulated" militias these days are all far right wingers hell bent on overthrowing a legally elected democracy.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.98  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  cjcold @1.1.97    3 weeks ago
Unfortunately the only "well regulated" militias these days are all far right wingers hell bent on overthrowing a legally elected democracy.

What I learned recently, and was completely unaware of until now, is that many states have actual state militias. They are similar to the National Guard but are under the sole control of state governors. 

New York, California and Texas all have them. I didn't go Googling state by state but I imagine they are nearly universal.

They tend to have land, air, and maritime divisions.

I can't wait to read about Arizona's navy.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.99  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.98    3 weeks ago

Wyoming has provisions for a "State guard " seperate from the national guard , the main difference between the 2 is who pays for it .

 the costs of the  NG are shared between state and feds , state provides manpower and some material usually in the form of training areas , feds provide training and some material .

 Now the State guard  would have to be totally funded by the state , and in doing so , those personel would not be subject to activation by the feds , little clause of if the feds want acsess to them the feds have to have skin in the game .in simple terms they have to pay for them in some way.

Now it is my understanding , at least here in Wyo, the SG only exists in law, what can be created  with the stroke of a pen,because both the SG and the NG would draw from the same general pool of man power . think about it for a second ., if one had the choice to be in the NG and be deployed all over the world as part of the federal reserve , or given a choice to serve in a SG that only answers to a govenor , and legally cannot be deployed outside the state boundries ,, thats kind of a no brainer .

 now as i said , this is all on paper , doesnt exist unless the govenor or the state Legislature authorizes the formation of it . BUT what the law already states here , is that once authorized , every able bodied person , between the ages of 17 to 72  are automatically conscripted .

 Personally , my active duty commitment was met years ago , as was my commitment to be in any form of reserve component . 

 I am well above the age cut of for active duty and NG service ,the feds can pull a Putin and raise the age and  ask and i can flip them the bird .

 Unfortunately for some , I still, as a resident and citizen of the state have a commitment to answer the call for SG duty if one is ever authorized . at least for the next 12 years .

 now i think there will ever really be a need for its formation? nope , but i already have the equipment that a SG would likely need , some of it is old GI surplus( not the body armor though , i bought that when i drove semi over the road and was delivering to places it was prudent to have it, and what i bought for myself by myself is far better than the military issues the troops . ) , but its the equipment i served with and know how to use .

way i see it , If that call is ever made ( again doubtful) , i show up with what i have and thats less the state would have to spend funds on to provide me in equipment or they can equip someone who doesnt have what they need. , that includes a firearm that all i would need is ammo ( I also have some lake city surplus ammo tucked away in case the state has logistic problems , same stuff the NG and feds use and i have enough to have a full ammo supply from when I served overseas (240 rnds  ) and at least a 2 day resupply for myself of what they would be issuing anyway so no problem ), i already have everything else that their supply chain that exists would supply. so its down to ammo and whatever passes for C,K rats or MRES they issue nowdays ,  really not looking forward to those , bad memories of the 5 fingers of death , though the ham and Motherf"ers were actually good , gassy but good .

 *afterthought edit .... The state guard would not be subject to possse com. like the active duty and sometimes the NG are , for the NG it would depend on which article they are actived on and under if PC applies , so they COULD legally be used to enforce laws those others are either forbidden to or cant by law .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.100  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.94    3 weeks ago

So now your comparing hunting a bull moose with a 22lr to shooting a captive steer or hog in the head with one.  

Ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.101  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.93    3 weeks ago
Well, we’re told by shotgun joe that neither are as lethal as a 9mm.

Well, if you believe Mark, he hunts bull moose with a 22lr. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.102  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.99    3 weeks ago
Wyoming has provisions for a "State guard " seperate from the national guard , the main difference between the 2 is who pays for it .

A lot of interesting information in your comment. I had coworkers who were in the reserves and one of them wound up in Iraq for a tour. That stuff is a serious commitment. 

But from a Constitutional perspective, it looks like the biggest difference between the National Guard and the state guards isn't who pays for them but who they report to.

I wonder if we will ever see a stand-off between the 82nd airborne and a state guard in this country.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.103  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.1.101    3 weeks ago

Not what he said but thanks for trying.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.104  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.102    3 weeks ago
I wonder if we will ever see a stand-off between the 82nd airborne and a state guard in this country.

dependant on whats going down ? the country already has seen a confrontation between the federal military and a state organizations , it was called the civil war , if such a thing were to happen again ? my bet would be we were already on the road if not already doing CW part deux

 the differences depends on how one looks at it , and i think it is a combonation of all of them , with the NG concept , members are subject to recall by 2 people and would take their orders from one of those 2 people , either the POTUS  or ths GOTS, and dependant on a states laws , they might even be recalled by the state legislature .

 The current NG system we have came into being after the Spanish /American war , during that war , guard units were federalized , the issue was , the state s had different criteria and different arming criteria , so the system we have was created to be logistically better , same uniforms ,arms , training , for all the states , and a more reliable method of instituting military regulations and laws and to better be able to absorb those guard units into active military units ..

 part of the NG deal is , who supplies what and pays for what . for instance , can a state afford a fleet of say , C-130s?  or KC-135s? even the best off states cant and afford to maintain them . but the feds can so the feds pay for some equipment the NG has , 

 does the feds have the man power to maintain and fly all these extra aircraft or use this equipment outside the military? not without increasing the military budget drastically ,so man power is supplied by the state as well as locations within the state to house these units .

 as for billeting , supply and feeding , those costs are usually split between the 2 entitied , like training is paid for and conducted bt the feds who keep a certain number of slots for NG members to slide into , and the state pays some of the monthly pay and expenses while the Ng members are on duty , remember , they only get paid ng pay when they are on duty ..

 the end result is guard members are subject to call , by both , if the POTUS activates and calls them , they become federalized and are treated as active duty military with all restrictions , and benefits .

 IF the GOTS or legislature call or activate them , they can be used in different rolls than if the feds activated them, example of this is if the NG is activated by the govenor , they can enforce civilian law to an extent without martial law being declared ( and a whole lotta shit has had to have gone sideways for that to happen ) If the feds activate the Ng and they are federalized , enforcement of civilian law is a big no-no , and even under martial law if declared by the POTUS , is looked at seriously and can only be used in the affected area of unrest , example is , martial law is declared in NYC , it does not mean the entire state of NY is under martial law , only those areas that civilian authorities can not and are not in control of the situation . if civilian authorities still have control , the military cant take over .. a good example of ML use would be chicago during one of their summers of love , civilian authorities are always on the brink of losing control all it would take is one good night or nights of wilding by the residents .

 The difference for a State Guard or State Militia , the state picks up the whole tab for everything , they may or may not use the UCMJ, or they may or may not use state laws in how members are treated , and they may or may not require the citizens of the state to supply their own equipment , like i stated before , i have what i think  would be needed for the possable uses the state could use me for , like the minute man of old , using the old militia acts as a guide of what MIGHT be expected and required . And i have not been able to find any thing about that in the state statutes . and because only the govenor can activate or call( legislature too) , the SG would only answer to the state government and those officers and ncos the state appoints .

Because of all that the feds have no claim or right to appropriate the organization,. the one they can already exists ,  few years back they tried to change that by making any state guard part of the FEMA respoonse system under fed control , the states told the feds to fuck off , with respect . But just like state guards existing on paper , the feds on paper without consent have the SG under FEMA , if they can enforce it , it hasnt been tested yet .and the feds , well (chuckles ) lets say it would by like trying to force OTR truckers to do something , they are already refusing to do .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.105  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @1.1.101    3 weeks ago

I said a moose , it can be male or female , and moose swim , get them in deep water and you can pull a boat right up on them , get a noose on them and do the same thing i do to steer and hogs ., i said it can be done , now i have told HOW it can be done . and BTW , never said i personally hunt moose with a 22, i said they can be effectively, its just in how one does it  , your assumptions have got you in the dookie again .

 but by all means , keep talking , its entertaining .

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.106  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.104    3 weeks ago

Well it’s happen after that.    

The Detroit riots in the 60’s and to a lesser degree I think in the LA riots.    Nothing like watching the 82nd and 101st Airborne rolling down your neighborhood street in an APC.

Yippee ki yay!

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.107  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.104    3 weeks ago

I'm dyslexic.

Can you maybe may your point in a couple of paragraphs?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.108  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.107    3 weeks ago

Ok under the curent NG system , the feds pay for some things , the state pays some things , the Ngs contracts make them answerable to both by law  and both can use them for entirely different things according to law , the pay to play thing  he who pays for things gets to play with the thing .

 the state guard , would be paid for solely by the state , so solely the chief exec of the state or legislature that would authorize pay get to play with them if ever created  to be used as they see fit ..

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.109  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.108    3 weeks ago
and both can use them for entirely different things according to law

Can the governor activate the (Wyoming) National Guard without Federal authorization?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.110  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @1.1.106    3 weeks ago

I was thinking when Ike used ng that got federalized for school intergration , most of the ones you mentioned ,the state government asked the feds to intervine , which is key to martial law , the POTUS doesnt actually have the power to make that call on their own , they have to be asked by the state to do so , otherwise seattle , portland and any number of other places would have had it happen during the 2020 season and summer of love tour . thats also why they cant roll into chicago  or any other city with issues , the state wont ask them to .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.111  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.109    3 weeks ago

yes  just as the feds can activate them without state authorization., this just gives the state government another tool outside federal government they can use if its decided its needed , 

 Wyo air guard has c-130s outfitted to fight wildland fires and are being called into service by the feds annually , when those troops are gone , the state has the option to create another force , the feds cant snatch away . 

 just like currently the county sherriffs  still have the authority to form posses and deputize said posse if the need comes up, and thats not just in wyoming , thats anywhere there is a sherriffs dept , they CAN do it , its just not used or talked about  and it does differ jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.112  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @1.1.101    3 weeks ago

ever watch swamp people? they kill big ole alligators with 22 LR , just have to know where to shoot them , its all in shot placement ma'am . and being in the right place to make that shot .

 But please , continue.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.113  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.110    3 weeks ago

Yeah, Romney asked LBJ for help and he authorized it.    

Yep, Mitt Romney’s pops was gov of Michigan back then for all you kiddo’s

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.114  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.110    3 weeks ago
I was thinking when Ike used ng

I think he used actual military.

Why Eisenhower Sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock After Brown v. Board

Which is a bit of a constitutional crisis when you get down to it.

Other than the Civil War and Ike , did the US ever send federal troops into a state to settle a dispute?

the POTUS doesnt actually have the power to make that call on their own , they have to be asked by the state to do so

I have more reading to do. I find this topic fascinating.

When you get down to it, the Civil War was a Second Amendment Constitutional crisis. People obviously sometimes frame the Civil War in terms of states' rights. But one of those rights was to have an armed militia that could defend the state against a military imposition on the part of the federal government.

Don't think I am getting soft on guns or modern civil rights. But I do like to follow a line of reasoning to its uncomfortable conclusions.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.115  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.114    3 weeks ago
Other than the Civil War and Ike , did the US ever send federal troops into a state to settle a dispute?

Whiskey rebellion , before that there was Shays rebellion in new england .

 dont think this counts but during the indian wars , the feds were constantly sent into the territories , but they were not states at the time and only became states later . and those territories had their own militia units .

 one of the more infamous usees of a state or territory militia happened in colorado , state guard units or militia ( prior to the current NG ) massecred a bunch of natives at aplace called sand creek , and chased the remaining members of the tribe , across wyoming and into idaho, i happen to live on the sand creek massecre trail  or a portion of it on the rez, its literally right out my front door  , the trail those natives took to escape .

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.116  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.115    3 weeks ago

There seems to be a rich history of American militias.

It seems to have colonial, revolutionary, Civil War, and westward expansion aspects. 

What I get stuck on as a gun control or "gun ownership responsibility" advocate, is that most of these militias had some sort of official capacity sanctioned by local law. Some gun owners these days seem to emphasize a notion that the militia is any able bodied man with a gun.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.117  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.114    3 weeks ago
the POTUS doesnt actually have the power to make that call on their own , they have to be asked by the state to do so
I have more reading to do. I find this topic fascinating.

Then this might interest you as well , because it directly lead to why and how the use of martial law is currently looked at ,.

 back during the civil war , Lincoln , declared martial law in some of the border states , where alliegences were "questionable?" problem is the localities took it to court , and got out from under military rule , remember under martial law and military rule , civilian laws and rules and rights , are basically shitcanned .

well even under the rules then of when martial law could be imposed , the civilian authorities still had complete control and there was nothing happening that would have required martial law to be enacted , thus placing the citizens under military law .

long story short ? the courts ruled in favor of the areas placed under martial law , lincoln had to pull the military commanders out of control and return it back to civilian authorities .

 and thus we have the current rules of imposition of martial law . all thanks to lincolns over reach of course there were other things that also contributed to what we have now that happened after that .

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.118  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.117    3 weeks ago
 and thus we have the current rules of imposition of martial law . all thanks to lincolns over reach

It's amazing that people had redress against the government during the Civil War.

We are a nation of laws (and lawyers) from our founding moment.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.119  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.116    3 weeks ago
Some gun owners these days seem to emphasize a notion that the militia is any able bodied man with a gun.

basically ,at its bare base , thats exactly what it is , and one doesnt nessisarily have to be "able bodied ". one can be missing a limb or something , but still be able to use a gun in self defense or defense of ones community . if one cannot defend themselves , they can not be expected to be able to defend their community . You unarm the individual , and you ultimately unarm the community .leaving them subjects and subject to some rather basic human conditions of bigger and stronger and younger usually  wins .

and i think that if it that persons choice , that they wish to defend themselves and their community , then that choice is theirs to make , not governments , and that is not to say government cant have certain stipulations either , but if the governments choice is to make the making of that choice and being able to do that defense impossable or too expensive , then the government has overstepped and ventured into the areas where dictators , authoritarians and tyrants have often dwelled and got away with many autrocities , simply because the people couldnt defend themselves from the very government they trusted to protect them. and i firmly believe those that vote for a government like that , in the back of their minds have ideas that they can benefit , if only those they wish to victimize couldnt fight backin an effective manner .

here is something i found years ago , it is worth contemplating and considering , and you will be surprised  who it was said by , and when .

...This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..."
-- US President Abraham Lincoln,  First Inaugural Address , March 4, 1861

 now what that tells me is that WE the people are the masters of government not the government are the masters over the people , and the only power the federal entity or the state for that matter has over us , is only that to which we consent to , will co-operate and comply with .

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.120  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.119    3 weeks ago
..This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..." -- US President Abraham Lincoln,  First Inaugural Address , March 4, 1861

But apparently, he did not mean a constitutional right to secede.

And if he meant a constitutional right to dismember or overthrow through violent revolution he did not imagine an unopposed revolution. The South gave it a go.

I struggle, personally, with the question as to why there is no legal method to leave the USA. Look at Puerto Rico. Decades and decades and they really can't resolve their status as a friggin territory. They belong to us but they don't have the same rights.

When you get down to it, America is really committed to the idea of manifest destiny, The land from east coast to west coast was ours for the taking.

It is what it is.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.121  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.118    3 weeks ago
It's amazing that people had redress against the government during the Civil War.

 the only ones that didnt have redress , would be those in active rebellion and secession, but then again , they were fighting a war as their own declared country , and not believing they had any rights with a seperate and different  country in their courts .

 the isue with martial law in border states simply because they were border states , those people still had rights the government could not impinge without reason or proof . 

lincoln , might have thought he had reason , but he had no proof that would stand in court . as was proven by the judgement .

Here is another interesting thing to consider , go take alook at the declaration of independance , i mean really read it , it is written in such a way that even a person considered illiterate , could understand what was being said , if it was read to them .

 take a read of the US constitution , even if an adult cant read , they can understand what is written if it is read to them .

 and laws need to get back to that , to be able to be easily understood if the law is simply read to a person , without explaination to twist it in one way or another .

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.122  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.119    3 weeks ago
basically ,at its bare base , thats exactly what it is , and one doesnt nessisarily have to be "able bodied ".

The second amendment didn't mean any fool with a gun when it described a well regulated militia.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.123  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.122    3 weeks ago

Ok i will take this step by step because we will undoubtably disagree on many things 

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.

Thats the entire text 

a well regulated militia is stated and then there is a comma.

 what is a militia and what is the definition of well regulated ?

 that has to be answered to agreement of all parties .

 a militia by law then and as now is every able bodied person capable of using a firearm

 well regulated can have a couple different meanings at the same time , one of which is that they are all equipped in alike manner , the same , like aregulated set of timepieces kept in selerate locations .

another meaning is that they are drilled and trained sufficiently to act as a sufficient cohiesive unt to counter threats .

 i will even add that they are "regulated" to follow a certain set of rules that a military formation must abide by( UCMJ comes to mind) .

being necessary to the security of a free State and then another comma 

well thats defining a need in itself by saying it is a nessisary thing, but security from what ? it wasnt just invasion of a foriegn power , it was also meant to mean invasion of ones domicile , ( self defense of ones home ) or person ( self defense defininition applies ) and is expanded to the security of the community at large . a free state well that is the community or a group of communities  as is generally defined by its jurisdictional borders , where the state has authority and legal jurisdiction . that means the people of the community were to assist the local sherriff , constable or police whatever name they went by if those people ran into something that they couldnt handle themselves.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, oops there is another comma .

Wait a second .... if the 2nd confirs the right to bear arms , why does it say that that right already exists ? could the right to keep and bear arms have existed BEFORE the 2nd was concieved ? well the right  to defend oneself definitely existed before this and if one could defend ones self they could if they chose defend their community and its members  , and the right to have arms before this was limited only to what one could obtain and afford  within their means . the brits tried to limit what arms  could be obtained , we saw how that ended . so the right to arms was there before the amendment that supposedly created that right .....

and the very last part, and is very plain and simple . and applies to the government federal state and local .....

shall not be infringed. notice the PERIOD.

 good luck convincing me otherwise .

27 simple words , put together in such a way, to cause such disagreement , i wonder if the writers are laughing ....

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.124  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.121    3 weeks ago
take a read of the US constitution , even if an adult cant read , they can understand what is written if it is read to them .

The second amendment could have been clearer.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.125  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.123    3 weeks ago

What is a militia? It is a well regulated militia under law. It's not anybody who could afford a musket in 1607. It is a well regulated militia in 1789 moving foward. We have well regulated militias to this very day. Do you belong to your state militia? Do you have a hunting license? Do you have a license to carry? If not then get the fuck out of here.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.126  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.124    3 weeks ago
The second amendment could have been clearer.

no arguments about that from me , but then again , they had different understanding then than people have today by virtue of what they had just gone through , and was common belief to them . today  the beliefs are differnt , and the dissagreement is rather diametrically opposed to the sides . total polar opposites comes to mind .

 to me the 2nd never confurred the right to arms and keep and carry them , it simply made stronger the already existing right , for the use of arms for self defense or community  that one could both obtain and afford with what their means provided they could . you might be able to afford a cheap walmart machete , i can afford an AR-15 ( actually i can afford a real military m-16/m-4 ) and pass the background checks the government demands as well as the required lics  , but i have no use for a select fire/ full auto  weapon made expensive by the government to obtain legally , i can , but i personally choose not to , so because of that choice im not being infringed on one wit . .

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.127  Sparty On  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.125    3 weeks ago

According to Merriam Webster:

1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
3 : a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideology
specifically : such a group that aims to defend individual rights against government authority that is perceived as oppressive
Note the last sentence.
 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.129  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.127    3 weeks ago

Merriam-Webster will only get you so far in a court of law.

“The use of the word ‘militia,’ any time you are talking about anything other than a state militia like the National Guard, it is just wrong,” said Mary McCord, a former Justice Department official now running an institute that specializes in constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center. “Using that term without putting ‘unlawful’ in front of it suggests that there is some legitimacy or even constitutional authority for their existence, which there isn’t.”

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.130  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.125    3 weeks ago

well by law i have to say i am not a memebr of ANY militia , because according to the laws of the free state i reside it is illegal to state that, without autorization of the govenor or legislature and the only "militia" i qualify for is the State guard  we were talking about that exists only on paper and only if the state authorizes it  , now if your asking am i a NG member nope , aged out , too old for acceptance .im over 45.

 now the county sherriff is aware of both my military and LEO background , met him and a nice guy , and by law he can deputize me if the need comes up and he has stated he wouldnt hesitate to if a need came up ( really not interested and too old for that shit they put up with anyway )

 what does a hunting lic have to do with the 2nd ? its not about hunting , besides some of the things i shoot at doing predator control , no lic is needed at all. feral cats , skunks porcupine , feral dogs and coyotes , no lic required , the list is longer too but you get the idea 

 my state does not require a lic to carry , either openly or concealed ,  if i choose to carry or not that is my choice and how i do so is also my choice, just as it is my choice to decide if i would use a firearm to defend someone elses life from harm or death, you see the law here says i CAN , it doesnt say i have to .

if i carry its there for myself  to make sure im not harmed or killed , no one else 

. and whether i do or not is really none of your business unless i travel to your location , then i would fall under your states jurisdiction and laws , thankfully , thats not going to happen. and its still none of your business if you travel to my state and location .

 i guess you told me, upvoting and liking your own comment and telling me to get the f out ... ooooooooh 

 your likely too old to do anything about anything anyway except spout bullshit  and think you will send youngsters to do your bidding . typical unicorn chaser with their knickers in a knot rubbing on their hemeroids .......go sit on a greased  barb wire wrapped baseball bat and spin .

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.131  Sparty On  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.129    3 weeks ago

The second amendment disagrees with you and Mary.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.132  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.105    3 weeks ago
I said a moose , it can be male or female , and moose swim , get them in deep water and you can pull a boat right up on them , get a noose on them and do the same thing i do to steer and hogs ., i said it can be done , now i have told HOW it can be done . and BTW , never said i personally hunt moose with a 22, i said they can be effectively, its just in how one does it  , your assumptions have got you in the dookie again .  but by all means , keep talking , its entertaining .

NO ONE 'personally hunts moose' with a 22lr Mark. I haven't reviewed every state's regulations but I know for a fact that it's illegal to deer hunt with a 22lr. Since moose are decidedly larger than deer, I presume it's equally illegal to hunt them with a 22lr. 

You fabricated scenario is ridiculous BUTT I would pay good money to watch you try to lasso a bull moose from a moving boat. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.133  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @1.1.132    3 weeks ago

so you think its never been done ? and illegaliy or legality has not a thing to do with it , it is a matter of if it can be done . i assure you , it can .

 keep chewing what your in , but the taste wont change . live long and remember .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.134  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.120    3 weeks ago
Look at Puerto Rico. Decades and decades and they really can't resolve their status as a friggin territory. They belong to us but they don't have the same rights.

PR was a prize of war after Spain lost , my personal opinion on the matter is let them go . they will decide eventually what they will do much like the Philippines did  , be it be soverign and their own country , or apply for statehood , where they stand currently is somewhere in the middle , its likely time they go one way or the other with no middle ground offered  .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.135  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.120    3 weeks ago
But apparently, he did not mean a constitutional right to secede.

It is my understanding that during the one and only constitutional convention that the issue was brought up, that if a state decide being in the union was not adventagious for the state would they be allowed to leave . Talk is cheap , but the consensus of those at the convention at that time thought that the process to leave the union of states , would be the opposite or follow the process of  becoming a state , and that was said by one Rufus King a   delegate of Mass.i did read that in his peronal papers in the Boston public library growing up, granted what the library has are copies , the actual papers written by the man are in the historical society archives .

Just as the idea of the second was a forgone conclusion , and it didnt NEED to be mentioned , but was included as an amendment , the process of a state leaving was not unthought of , or not discussed , they just didnt put down a means or way to do so at that time , what it would take now to make a legal way to do so, is through the amendment processes allowed.

The idea of once in the union , always in the union didnt come about until the civil war or very shortly before , and simply because there was no constitutional mechanism that allowed for it to be done  or how to do it ..

The south desire to leave the union was not the first time this issue came up either , the New England states back during the war of 1812 , called for a regional convention of states ( which was allowed ) to discuss leaving due to the economic impact of said war on the immediate region  , the war ended before the convention could be conviened , so there was no need for the convention because the issiue was resolved . South carolina , entertained the thought during andrew jacksons presidency , but that idea got squashed by jacksons use of federal troops 

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.136  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.131    3 weeks ago
The second amendment disagrees with you and Mary.

You know what is a better source for explaining the phrase "well-regulated militia" than just about anything else? The "Articles of Confederation" which also used the term:

... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

You will notice the emphasis on storing arms in an armory. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.137  Sparty On  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.136    3 weeks ago

I also note that it doesn’t try to exclude individual ownership of weapons and ammunition in any way.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.138  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.133    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.139  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.136    3 weeks ago

maybe they should have kept that part , but they didnt  there might actually be a legal argument then ,what you do have is an anecdotal argument  , one that can be ignored .., and the AoC  and alll it contained became NULL and VOID the day the current Constitution gained the required number of states for ratification . and because they didnt carry that over and amended the new document the way they did ,  they must have thought what that clause stated was not important , or it was bargained away in debate , OR it didnt get the needed votes from the delegates in that form to be included .

reading that and the current 2nd Am, im willing to bet it was the last thing i mentioned , the AoC clause didnt have the votes to be included in the new document , and the same people who were behind the current 2nd , somehow garnered enough votes  to get that version included as an amendment to the origional body  but they knew they couldnt get that AoC specific clause .

 remember the 10 amendments(there were origionally 12  and one later was accepted when proposed ,  but only 10 made it with the document to ratification) were used as barganing chips to get the votes needed from the 13 states delegates to send the whole package to the states for their votes of ratification which i think 9 or 10 states had to ratify  for it to be accepted  , yes politics like today existed even back then where things were  added or deleted due to "politics"..or for a lack of votes .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.140  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.1.136    3 weeks ago
You will notice the emphasis on storing arms in an armory. 

i see that , but i also see that it has no provision that states that said stores would be made available to the federal entity , and it basically really sets up an individual state army , those store would have to be guarded 24/7. which would require a standing state  army . it also doesnt as pointed out forbid civilian ownership of arms , not even cannons (ie field pieces ).

 i was always taught the reason the AoC was replaced , was because some thought it gave TOO much power to the states , with no recourse for the Federal government  could that have been one of the "flaws " they were thinking of , but instead of a rewrite of just one clause they decided to start from scratch and create an entirely different governing document ..

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1    one month ago

you get right on that , get your representatives to draw it up , submit it to congress to be voted on as is required for an amendment repeal , THEN send it to the states for ratification and agreement , any bets which of the 13 states needed to trashcan this idea will be? any bets there would only be 13? or would there be more .?

 while your at it you can visit with Mr Rourke and Tatoo.......

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.2.1  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2    one month ago

Nobody says this is a fight you win over night.

Nobody said repealing Roe was a fight that gets won overnight either.

People win the long game when they play the long game.

But I don't even like the word "win" here. This isn't about effing with people to make them feel bad. This is about fixing our gun violence and mass shootings problem. At the end of the day people who need and want guns for legitimate reasons will still have guns.

 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Gulliver @1    one month ago

I'm not crazy about this idea. our past history has demonstrated that lead and gunpowder is the only proven deterrence to aristocracies, theocracies, white supremacists, and fascists. my opinion is that more teeth need to put into the 2nd to empower american citizens in protecting the first amendment against those that would hide behind it while espousing unamerican ideals. autocrats? >boom< theocrats? >boom< racist confederates and insurrectionists? >boom, boom, boom< fascists? you get the picture... okay, I'll admit to being disappointed in missing out on some of that legally sanctioned carnage in the past. /s

in all seriousness, access to gun ownership needs to be strictly regulated. common sense gun laws, universal background checks, along with documented transfers of ownership would help. very strict penalties for gun violations and for crimes committed with them is needed to reverse the social and cultural devastation that has now become all too commonplace. america is better than this and there is plenty of room for sane compromises.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Gulliver @1    one month ago

If guns are outlawed, (except military and law enforcement), only outlaws will have guns.

That's the inconvenient truth for the gun grabbers

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.4.1  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4    one month ago
only outlaws will have guns

And military and law enforcement.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Gulliver @1.4.1    one month ago

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.4.3  squiggy  replied to  Gulliver @1.4.1    one month ago

"Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw said at a news conference Wednesday that the shooter was at the school for up to an hour before law enforcement breached the classroom."

Well, there's your probable outcome.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.4.4  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4.2    one month ago

Although I live in a dense urban area, I have stayed with friends who live in the country and I totally understand why a person in a situation like that would need to own a gun and a have a gun in the home.

I have been on camping trips where one member of the group had a hand gun and between the bears and lord knows who is in the woods with you, I can understand the need for a weapon in the woods.

But I do not understand why anyone needs an AR15 and I am glad that the city I live in makes it hard to own a gun.

And for what it is worth, when I was a Boy Scout I got the firearms merit badge. :)

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.4.5  Split Personality  replied to  squiggy @1.4.3    one month ago
Well, there's your probable outcome.

Here's the reported timeline.  Without mentioning the multiple CBP that responded first,

Police were on the scene in three minutes at 11;44AM and immediately took fire.

By 1:06PM Ramos was dead and "in custody".

What did police do at Texas school shooting? A timeline emerges. (msn.com)

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.4.6  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  squiggy @1.4.3    4 weeks ago

Actually, it's your probably outcome.

If I were king, Salvador Ramos would not have had an AR15 and body armor.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.4.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.4.6    4 weeks ago

Exactly, like we keep illegal drugs away from our citizens and alcohol back in the 30’s.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.4.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.4.4    4 weeks ago
between the bears and lord knows who is in the woods with you, I can understand the need for a weapon in the woods.

as long as you dont hear banjo music , you should be fine , and if you keep a "clean ' camp the bears wont bother you either ....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.4.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.4.6    4 weeks ago
If I were king,

why did i just picture the cowardly lion from Oz singing ," if i were king of the forest...."

 i couldnt pass that one up... nope , nada , no way ,  especially when the person got their knickers knotted about 4 25# bags of kingsford charcoal briquettes ......

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.4.10  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.4.9    4 weeks ago
why did i just picture the cowardly lion from Oz singing ," if i were king of the forest...."

Because you watch too many old movies with a pair of rabbit ears while polishing your rifle.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.4.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @1.4.10    4 weeks ago

I readily admit to liking watching the older movies , some of the newer stuff , not so much. and even though wyoming is sometimes 20-30 years behind the times , i do "stream " from the internet to the TV what movies interest me .

 i have never felt a need to "polish "any of my firearms since i clean them correctly and store them as they should be , unless i have a need for them or they get taken out and get dirty , they become closet queens secured in their cabinet .

 Still waiting for a visit from the FBI or homeland security , just wont be holding my breath....

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.12  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.4.11    4 weeks ago

Ok, that was funny.  Haha

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.13  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4.2    3 weeks ago

When seconds count my 95 lb. dog will bite your balls off. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Gulliver @1    one month ago

Just five words for you: "From my cold dead hands."

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.5.1  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.5    one month ago

Sorry, dude. Can't resist this one:

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.5.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.5    4 weeks ago

A lot of folks don't seem to have a problem with just shooting you dead before you have that option.

Ridiculous.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gulliver @1    4 weeks ago

You may be right on that. When you consider that the framers wrote the second amendment at a time when they were revolting against colonial rule, it really may not relate to 2022. I must give them the credit they deserve. The Constitution guided the nation well for the past 246 years.

One thing that needs refining is the second amendment.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.6.1  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6    4 weeks ago

I don't trust any tampering with the Second Amendment,  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.6.2  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @1.6.1    4 weeks ago

For the most part, only the triggered do.

That said go for a repeal gun control advocates.    Find out once and for how many Americans really support the 2nd Amendment as it is.    With no ginned up changes.

You won’t be happy ....guaranteed ...

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
1.7  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Gulliver @1    4 weeks ago

Of course because it’s completely logical to look at the extremist violence that is occurring out there and decide that we need less protection.

Based on your comment it appears you don’t realize that if you olan to repeal the second amendment then  a violent revolution would result. 

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.7.1  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Lucifer Morningstar @1.7    4 weeks ago
 a violent revolution would result. 

We already have a violent revolution.

It started on January 6, 2020.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.7.2  charger 383  replied to  Lucifer Morningstar @1.7    4 weeks ago

It would be very bad to put people in a lose it or use it situation.   

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
1.7.3  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Gulliver @1.7.1    3 weeks ago

That's false of course but the hysterical hyperbole does appear to resonate with the lesser among us.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.7.5  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Lucifer Morningstar @1.7.3    3 weeks ago

Yet some people may wind up with prison sentences for sedition.

The charge of seditious conspiracy — which can be difficult to prove and carries particular legal weight as well as political overtones — requires prosecutors to show that at least two people agreed to use force to overthrow government authority or delay the execution of a U.S. law. It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

I guess the greater among us can see they were just cosplaying tourists.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.7.6  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Lucifer Morningstar @1.7.3    3 weeks ago
That's false of course but the hysterical hyperbole does appear to resonate with the lesser among us

Look what hysterical hyperbole made these people do:

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
1.7.7  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Gulliver @1.7.6    3 weeks ago

So now you are agreeing with me. Didn't think that was possible.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
1.7.8  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Gulliver @1.7.5    3 weeks ago

You do realize that politically motivated prosecution of those who oppose the establishment is true threat to the democratic republic.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.7.9  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Lucifer Morningstar @1.7.8    2 weeks ago
You do realize that politically motivated prosecution of those who oppose the establishment is true threat to the democratic republic.

I have a secret plan to not get prosecuted for trying to interfere with Congress doing its job by breaking a window to enter the Capitol building.

Hint: It involves not breaking a window to illegally enter the Capitol building while congress is in joint session.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
2  charger 383    one month ago

The Second Amendment is what keeps us free, not Congress, Courts or Presidents.  

A Citizen can bear arms, a serf can not. i will not be a serf 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1  Split Personality  replied to  charger 383 @2    one month ago

And you should be able to own a shotgun or a single shot rimfire rifle to hunt or whatever.

Noone needs an automatic rifle that can expend 200 plus rounds in a classroom in a few seconds.

No One.

90% of this country gets their food from stores, commissaries and restruants.

We don't hunt for every meal anymore and we sure as hell aren't under threat of a military invasion any more.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @2.1    one month ago
We don't hunt for every meal anymore and we sure as hell aren't under threat of a military invasion any more.

Has anyone located and disposed of the Obamahordes yet? Word was they were going to try and slaughter Christians. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @2.1    one month ago
Noone needs an automatic rifle that can expend 200 plus rounds in a classroom in a few seconds.

No one can, without a special license that is heavily regulated by the ATF.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.2    one month ago

BS, this kid got an AR from Daniel Defense online, a few days after his 18th birthday.

DD has since turned off their Twitter account and withdrawn from the NRA festival this weekend in Houston.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @2.1.3    one month ago

he got the gun online? even if he did it would have had to have been shipped to an FFL holder that would then do the required BGC . before it was released to him . that is federal law and i doubt DD would risk losing their lic doing otherwise .

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.3    one month ago

He bought an AR, which is not an automatic weapon.    The only way a US citizen can own an automatic weapon was noted above.

Stop lying.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.4    one month ago

Correct.

He bought his first AR from Outback Oasis off the shelf.

He returned a few days later to pick up 375 rounds.

Then a few days later to pick up the rifle from DD.

Questionable if DD is culpable for anything 

but they are doing their best turtle imitation this week.

Having no interest in such things I am not familiar with the legalities.

Especially the Texas laws forbidding 18 year olds from legally possessing

a hand gun of any sort, but a rifle?  No problem.

And I have no problem with rimfire rifles or common shotguns.

Every kid should have one to learn about gun safety.

Automatic weapons? NFW, maybe age 26?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.5    one month ago
Stop lying.

Stop hiding behind the semantics of semi automatic vs 

military full automatic

It's a lame argument.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.6    one month ago

He didn’t buy any automatic weapons.

Stop lying.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.7    one month ago
It's a lame argument.

Only to the triggered.

Yes, pun intended.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @2.1.6    one month ago
Questionable if DD is culpable for anything 

actually no question at all about culpability except in the minds of those that know no better , a person can order anything they want on line , in this case a fully assembled firearm , all the company had to make sure of to keep the transaction legal was that A. the individual met the age requirement , in this case federal law states 18 to buy a rifle or shot gun . and B.  that the place it was shippped to was a federal firearms licd  individual or entity , 

DD did NOTHING questionable or illegal , so their culpability ends where their part of the transaction ended , which was shipping the item to an FFL  for pick up, Who is required by federal and state law to finish up with the actual federal paperwork and required BGC which was passed not once , but twice  as you pointed out he bought one off the shelf earlier and passed .

 as a side note i can do more damage with a 12 G shotgun  as with the typical so called Assault weapon , but then again i have 50 yrs of experience and weapons training to include combat shotgun training to fall back on ,  if you think what your whining about now is bad , let someone thats trained in a weapons potential and use really wake you up . and you think a shot gun is ok , excuse me while i laugh what little ass i have left off .

 You do know in the hands of a trained combat shotgunner that they can appear to shoot around corners ?

 there is a reason that the germans in WW1 didnt like shotguns in the trenches and wanted to make their use a war crime .

 and you dont have to take my word , we have many combat vets on site , and i bet most would agree with my statement .

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.6    one month ago

Gun shops and the majority of online dealers do not sell automatic weapons for the reasons already stated above. I feel fairly confident that the shooter purchased semi auto AR style weapons. Those can do just as much damage in the wrong hands, but they are still legal. Many on the anti gun liberal left do know or care about the difference between automatic versus semi automatic fire weapons and assault weapons versus assault rifles. If it is black and looks like M4 type weapon, it is automatically assumed to be a assault rifle. I have a Mossberg M702 Tactical Pinkster that is .22LR caliber and is black, semi auto, resembles AR style weapons. I use it as a varmint gun and target practice. Has a whopping 10 round magazine.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.10    one month ago

A Mossburg 500 in the right hands...

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
2.1.13  Gazoo  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.7    one month ago

Lmao. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.12    one month ago

As a kid we were allowed to carry a single barrel one shot shotgun when we went fishing in Gettysburg because there were packs of wild dogs loose in the woods and cornfields

and a single shot 22 didn't scare the dogs for more than a few minutes.

We were given a couple shells apiece and expected to bring them all home.

Only once did we fire fire 2 volleys into the woods, heard some yelping and dogs

running through the brush.

We learned to shoot trap with double barreled shotguns.

several memories of bad bruises, lol.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
2.1.15  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.5    one month ago
The only way a US citizen can own an automatic weapon was noted above.

Or if they modify their AR15 with a kit.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.3    one month ago
BS, this kid got an AR from Daniel Defense online, a few days after his 18th birthday.

An AR-15 doesn't meet the requirements as a fully automatic weapon.  And to purchase it, he still had to meet requirements set forth by law.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.7    one month ago
Stop hiding behind the semantics of semi automatic vs  military full automatic

It's only a lame argument to those who don't understand that an AR-15 is not a military weapon.  It's not fully automatic.  It may look like one but there isn't a single military in the world using the AR-15.  What you are seeing the military use are the M-4 and all it's variants.  Even the basic M-4 isn't fully automatic.  

Now, you can buy military weapons.  While deployed to Afghanistan I carried the Mossberg 590 for clearing buildings.  They run about $300-$600 at Academy Sports.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  Gulliver @2.1.15    one month ago

And they would be illegal without the proper licensing.    No new regulations/laws needed.    Just enforce the existing ones.

You can combine several everyday household products to make a bomb.      Shall we outlaw all of those as well?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.19  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @2.1.15    one month ago
Or if they modify their AR15 with a kit.

which the so called kits to do so are already illegal  to possess unless one has the proper lic , paperwork and has paid for the tax stamp , which means they would need to manufacture the needed parts themselves,  then comes the issue of having to fit the part into the lower receiver which entails making room for the part to fit and work correctly, something that takes more than a drill bit and actually takes some level of metal machining proficiency , which again is already illegal to do. 

The simplest way i have found to convert a semi to a full auto , does not require any additional parts , no real machining ability and only entails the use of a Jewlers file on one already existing part, again illegal to do , and there is no switching back and forth from semi to full and back again . 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.20  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.16    one month ago

something pointed out to me , Daniel defense isnt exactly a lower end rifle , they are expensive , add the fact the kid is reported to have had body armor ,again , the stuff that works , aint cheap .

 i understand the kid worked for a fast food joint ,  but do they really pay THAT well to afford these things ?

 its the old , follow the money thing at the moment , contrary to what some appear to want others to believe , these things dont just grow on trees , and cost money and in some cases lots of money , where did the money come from ?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.20    one month ago
and the kid worked for a fast food joint ,  but do they really pay THAT well to afford these things ?  its the old , follow the money thing at the moment , contrary to what some appear to want others to believe , these things dont just grow on trees , and cost money and in some cases lots of money , where did the money come from ?

That is a whole aspect that I had seen mentioned but it was ignored in the ignorance of blaming the firearm.  It does raise so many questions, that unfortunately we may never get answers to.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.22  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @2.1.12    one month ago

laugh if you wish , you do so at your own expense , everyone has basically seen the movie dumb and dumber , with the most annoying sound in the world scene . any guesses what the most recognizable sound in the world is in the dark when its quiet ?

 the sound of a shotgun being fed a shell into the chamber and the bolt closing is a good answer , it has made many a prowler / criminals butt pucker to a factor of infinity for many a year .... 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.22    one month ago

Someone isn’t supposed to be in my locked home they won’t hear a round being racked into a shotgun.    They will hear a half a bang though.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.22    one month ago
the sound of a shotgun being fed a shell into the chamber and the bolt closing is a good answer

It would make me freeze and do what I was told to.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.25  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.24    one month ago

actually it would be debatable what would happen first , would you say "SHIT" or would you make "shit "...... maybe both at the same time ....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.26  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @2.1.23    one month ago

"smile when you see the flash ...."

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.27  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.26    one month ago

Lol .... exactly.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Gulliver @2.1.15    one month ago

Which is still illegal unless one has the proper permit to own such.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.29  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.22    one month ago
laugh if you wish

I don't know how you got that out of my comment, any Mossberg 500 series is a weapon to be reckoned with as you and Jeremy have attested to.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.30  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @2.1.29    one month ago

could be , it was gazoos response  and it should have been directed there , , his response did make what you said look like it was being laughed at .

 my apologies .

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
2.1.31  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.28    one month ago

It's also advised that nobody uses Qtips to clean wax from their ears.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.32  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.20    one month ago

They cost around $2000. The story about body armor seems to be another mistake by the Uvalde LEO it came out today that he did not have body armor. But at this point who knows since the whole response was FUBAR.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.33  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.17    one month ago
While deployed to Afghanistan I carried the Mossberg 590 for clearing buildings.  They run about $300-$600 at Academy Sports.

While deployed to Nam I carried a Stevens 520/30 Trench gun. Cleared most everything. 

You can purchase them today legally but it won't be for $500/600. I'm seem them as high as $10,000.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.34  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @2.1.32    one month ago

frankly the reporting has been FUBAR as well IMHO.

I didnt mention it before but an interview with his grandfather , the man said he didnt even know the boy had bought them , if he had known he would have called the cops because He , the grandfather is prohibited from living in a house with firearms . Made me think , ok he is either a convicted felon  or he was convicted for domestic violence at some point in time thus him being a prohibited person .

 but as said above the reporting has been FUBAR as well so have to take that info with a grain of salt .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.35  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @2.1.33    one month ago
You can purchase them today legally but it won't be for $500/600. I'm seem them as high as $10,000.

well if steven even still made that particular mdl , it likely would go in the $1000 range , $10k? that one has to have some provenance like your mobsters handgun or my #2 serial numbered colt .

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.36  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.34    one month ago

He is a convicted felon per a news story a couple of days ago.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.37  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.35    one month ago

They are not made any longer the going rate for one in good shape is in the 2000/3000 range. If it has the attachments (bayonet) add to that figure. There were a couple that went up for auction and the min bid was $7,000. I have no idea if they sold or not. 

You can check the net and you'll find that 2000/3000 is the range for most in good shape. 

Mine is in excellent shape and has all of the accessories that make it a trench gun. The providence is that they were used in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. 

20785600_1.jpg?v=8D1B550C6D157D0

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.38  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @2.1.37    one month ago

looking at it , and that square back , makes me think that John M Browning had a hand in its design somewhere along the line , but then again he influenced many designs and makers .

 And since its out of production , that adds to the price as well.

 I have a couple of brownings A-5s one an original Browning that was my dads , and one i picked up while in the service , that was a WW2 clone of the A-5 patent, made for the military i got dirt cheap like 200 dollars cheap in the 80s , thing was still wrapped in brown wax paper and cosmoline when i bought it . set them side by side , and except for the engraving on dads , same exact gun , only mine was made by remington and called the mdl 11. browning talking about bringing the A-5 back into production and calling it the A-5 classic .

 i just call mine the humpbacks .

 afterthought i wonder and you might be able to say , was it like the model 12 and  the 1897 and could be slam fired ?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.39  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.35    one month ago

Stevens, Remington, Ithaca, and Winchester all made ''trench guns''. 

And yes, it can be slam fired. 

You might be interested in this photo. 1965, the 173rd Airborne heading out and yes, that is a Stevens 520/30 Trench gun that trooper is carrying. 

vietshot.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=987&height=551&rnd=132620310228570000&quality=70

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
2.1.40  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Kavika @2.1.39    one month ago

It is also striking how we disproportionately sent our fellow African Americans to fight that damned war.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.41  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @2.1.40    one month ago

88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% were black; 1% other races.
86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% were black; 1.2% other.
170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there. 70% of enlisted men killed were of North-west European descent.
86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% were black; 1.1% other.
14.6% of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.42  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.41    one month ago

Approximately 42,000  American Indians—one of four eligible Native people compared to about one of twelve non-Natives—served in the armed forces during the war in Vietnam (1964–1975).

American Indians and Alaska Natives serve in the Armed Forces at  five times the national average  and have served with distinction in every major conflict for over 200 years. Considering the population of the U.S. is approximately 1.4 percent Native and the military is 1.7 percent Native (not including those that did not disclose their identity),  Native people have the highest per-capita involvement  of any population to serve in the U.S. military.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.43  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Kavika @2.1.42    one month ago

Indeed and an important fact to remind folks of.  Thanks.

Today, Native-Americans serve in the armed forces at a higher rate than any other demographic. Since 9/11, 19% percent have served in the armed forces. much higher than other ethnicities.

This has been true since WW I.  I served from 1976 to 2000 and served with many Native Americans.  They were usually treated with the respect that they earned.  Bullets don't discriminate.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.44  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.41    one month ago

Good facts to quash some of those disingenuous narratives some like to push.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.41    one month ago

Different data:

Blacks were more likely to be drafted than whites. Though comprising 11% of the US population in 1967, African Americans were 16.3% of all draftees.

Black History And The Vietnam War, a story - African American Registry (aaregistry.org)

BTW, can we get a link for your data? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.46  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.45    one month ago
Different data:

Yes, it is.  It's augmenting the original fact.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.47  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.46    one month ago

Link?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.48  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.47    one month ago

It's on a number of sites, to include this one.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.49  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.47    one month ago

You've indicated an interest in Vietnam Service stats, here is another one on those Vets that served there with their general population number at the time:

  • 82.7% White - 72.3%
  • 9,1% Black - 10.1%
  • 5.2% Hispanic - 11.1%
  • 1.2% Asian/NHOPI - 5.1%
  • 1.2% Other - 1%
  • 0.6 NA or Alaskan - 0.5%

BTW most Vietnam Vets weren't drafted, they volunteered, just like in WW II.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.50  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.43    one month ago

Actually, it's been true since the Revolutionary War. The Oneida, Chief Shenandoah and Polly Cooper at Valley Forge. 

Company K, Ist Michigan Sharpshooters, the Battle of the Crater. Civil War.

The first code talkers, the Choctaw of WWI

The 45th Infantry Division ''The Thunderbirds'' of WWII

The Alamo Scouts of WWII

There are many more but it's a good start. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.51  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Kavika @2.1.50    one month ago

Thanks Kavika, I appreciate the info.  Have you had a chance to visit the National Native American Veterans Memorial here in DC next to the National Museum of the American Indian?  I found it to be a powerful tribute to Native heroes.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.52  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.51    one month ago

Not yet, we were planning to go to the opening when the pandemic changed our plans. We hope to go this coming fall (2022).

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.53  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Kavika @2.1.52    one month ago

I think that you will find both very rewarding.  I took my family for the first time shortly after the museum first opened.  My daughter was almost nine at that time and had gotten into American Girl Dolls.  Her first one was Kaya, a 18th Century Nez Perce girl.  My daughter loved my reading of her stories before bedtime.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.54  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.25    one month ago

Or one only manages to get the first syllable in "SHIT" out.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.55  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.53    one month ago

I've been to the Museum of the Native American a couple of times but was really looking forward to the opening of the NA Veterans memorial. 

So hopefully this coming fall.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.56  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.49    one month ago
BTW most Vietnam Vets weren't drafted, they volunteered, just like in WW II.

There were reasons for that. They choose their branch and MOS. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.57  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.56    one month ago
They choose their branch and MOS.

Exactly, self interest trumps patriotism.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.58  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.57    one month ago

HA, choose your mos only if there was an opening and you qualified etc etc..

MOS 111.17.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.59  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @2.1.58    4 weeks ago

When my son enlisted in the Corps, he picked electronics 06, 28 or 59.

Of course he ended up carrying the manpack77 and batteries. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.60  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.59    4 weeks ago

I well remember the AN/PRC-77, we called by an acronym, pronounced, Prick 77.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.61  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.60    4 weeks ago

Ditto, and while the radio was "only" 13.5 pounds it was useless without the batteries

antennae and cables, the manpack rack etc, all added up.

But it was electronics & communications jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.62  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.49    4 weeks ago

I enlisted in the Navy in 1973. During basic training, a draft board member showed up at my house and asked where I was. She told him I was already in basic training. Ironically, my draft card showed up in the mail the next day and my mother sent it to me. Upon receiving it, I symbolically burned my draft card in my barracks that night!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.63  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.59    3 weeks ago

During my time as young FMF Hospital Corpsman with the the Marines, my company gunny thought it would be a good idea for the"Doc" to learn how to carry and use the prc/25 if the regular radioman got injured. I told the gunny "I'm a Corpsman not a radioman.". He got right up in my face and said with a smile, "Well Doc, when you're with us, now you're both." At that time, I was unaware that the first three people the enemy tried to take out were the platoon/squad leader, the radioman, and then the Corpsman.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2.2  pat wilson  replied to  charger 383 @2    one month ago
i will not be a serf 

Me either.

Fortunately I don't think there are currently any feudal systems in the USA, lol.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @2.2    one month ago

not yet...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3  JBB  replied to  charger 383 @2    one month ago

original

For 100 years we defended our ranch with a .22. It was enough to dispatch any coyotes or badgers bothering our livestock. Compared with a .22 caliber bullet the 5.56 caliber rounds used by the Uvalde shooter were overkill to the nth degree. There are guns and then there are industrial killings machines!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2.3    one month ago
There are guns and then there are industrial killings machines!

[Deleted. Jokes about the firepower necessary to slaughter children are distasteful in the extreme.]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.3.1    one month ago

Oh FFS and those children and teachers are still dead.

WTF is wrong with you.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.3.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.2    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
2.3.4  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.3.1    one month ago
No need to use more firepower than is necessary.  Salvador Rolando Ramos didn't have your experience.

No need for civilians to have a rifle that can do that sort of damage multiple times in short period of time.

If someone gets a 22 in their liver they might survive the shot but one of those AR15 rounds? Not so likely. 

How do I know this? 

I just listened to a podcast.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.5  JBB  replied to  Gulliver @2.3.4    one month ago

Compared with .22 cartridges, 5.56 rounds like those used in Uvalde, cause exponentially more tissue damage passing through a body.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.4  Gsquared  replied to  charger 383 @2    one month ago

I would be interested in hearing about instances from American history where the Second Amendment has kept us free, or has contributed to keeping us free.  Can you please provide some examples.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @2.4    one month ago

i dont know if the battle of Athens in the 1940s would count or not .

 i do know the deacons of defense in the south , particularly in miss and alabama  during the jim crow era  during the 40s and 50s would disagree with you on some points .

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.4.2  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.4.1    one month ago

The Battle of Athens is an interesting situation and may arguably apply since it was citizens against a corrupt and oppressive local government.

The Deacons for Defense and Justice is also an interesting possible example.  I believe the Deacons organization was founded in 1964, unless you are referring to a different group.  I was actually thinking about the Black Panthers after I wrote my comment, but I'm not certain they really apply.

I don't think I was making any points with my original comment.  Just expressing curiosity.  So I don't know what "points" the Deacons would disagree with.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @2.4.2    one month ago
I don't think I was making any points with my original comment.  Just expressing curiosity.

ok i can understand that . 

i think the deacons would point out because of the 2nd , that the people affected had the ability to protect themselves , keeping in mind those being defended and protected from were bent on terrorism and murder , nothing scared the cluckers of the day then , than an armed individual that would defend themselves , they counted on fear and intimidation, much like todays criminal ellement  , being able to defend against such actions doesnt mean there wasnt fear , but the odds were leveled and not so one sided as the cluckers would like , and because of that 2nd right ,  upholding the natural right to defend ones self , things didnt go the way one side would have liked .

my basic belief and understanding of the 2nd , goes way beyond , if i can own a firearm . it also entails , me having the ability to defend myself if needed from those that think they can simply bulldoze and get their way , because they are either bigger or stronger , or have a majority opinion behind them .

i have my firearms  not because i feel inadequate or insecure , i do have them because when faced with a situation of say a 2 on one or 3 on one , physically i might be inadequate , and since i joined the ranks of senior citizens last saturday ( turned 60) i have lived long enough , and in enough different places , to have seen  humans inhumanity to other humans , and realize my own security is my own issue to deal with if i do not wish to be a victim, and the criminal element are somewhat emboldened lately because of reduced penalties or lack of enforcement   , LEO generally come after the fact and write reams of reports , cant count on them to be in the right place at the right time ,all the time .

 i can say more , but this is already too long and most wont read it because it is long. and i do have an example from last sat night that relates .

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.4.4  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.4.3    one month ago

Happy Birthday.  I will turn 69 years young in about 3 weeks.  

I shot firearms a few times when I was a kid with the Boy Scouts.  Target shooting and skeet shooting, which was a lot of fun.

I am not interested in owning firearms now.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
2.4.5  charger 383  replied to  Gsquared @2.4    one month ago

Still free and unconquered for over 240 years.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @2.4.4    one month ago

thank you.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.4.7  Gsquared  replied to  charger 383 @2.4.5    one month ago
Still free and unconquered

Let's hope it always stays that way.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
2.4.8  charger 383  replied to  Gsquared @2.4.7    one month ago

Always, and  happy upcoming  Birthday

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.4.9  Gsquared  replied to  charger 383 @2.4.8    one month ago

Thank you!

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.4.10  Split Personality  replied to  Gsquared @2.4.9    one month ago

Happy birthday GS!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.4.11  Gsquared  replied to  Split Personality @2.4.10    one month ago

Thank you SP!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
2.4.12  Raven Wing  replied to  Gsquared @2.4.4    one month ago
Happy Birthday.  I will turn 69 years young in about 3 weeks. 

A very Happy Birthday early, G. 

384

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.4.3    one month ago

I agree with you 100%. I live 6 blocks from the AZ/NM/Mexico border and a lot of illegal immigrant traffic comes through my neck of the Sonoran Desert. It is a rural and sometimes thinly populated area and not all illegals are simple asylum seekers. Drug cartels routinely cross the border with their wares and are heavily armed, more so that the CBP or local law enforcement. They are not averse to breaking into outlying ranch and farm homes. I keep my guns to protect my family and my property. the farther one lives out in the country, the longer it takes for law enforcement to show up and people sometimes have to rely on themselves for their own protection until LEO's show up which is the local County Sheriffs. I myself am 67 and still a expert shot with my 9 mm pistol.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.14  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.4.13    one month ago

I will relate what happened over my birthday now , it might be a bit long , but i will condense it somewhat .

 I started celebrating fri nite since i was born just after midnight , and it being a fri night it is my usual thing to go out and socialize and have a couple few adult beverages , a young lady i have known since i moved here was out club hopping came in with her partner , saw it was my birthday and planted one on the old mans cheek . and left .

 fast forward to sat nite , my birthday , again being a sat nite and my legitimate birthday day , i was out again having some adult beverages generally having a good time , her sister comes in and is a bit "OFF" i ask her if everything is alright , and she tells me she is having one of the worst days she can remember , i figure she has had a bad day at work , or she is having an issue with her fiancé who is one of my best friends , she tells me her sister had shot one of her exes the night before . 

keep in mind i had seen the sister and the new guy the night before and nothing had happened , turns out , they went home , the ex , not happy with being an ex , and not happy with having been replaced , had kicked in the front door and proceeded to try and do an old fashioned "stomp a mud hole" in the new guy , to the extent the lady was given the impression that the pummeling would not stop until the new guy was dead .

So she retrieved her handgun , and shot the ex once , that stopped the altercation , and she immediately called 911 and reported it . Cops show up , ex is flown out due to injuries sustained , cops statement later in the week was that it all appears on investigation to be a case of self defense/ defense of another  .

for those wondering , she is not facing any charges as of yet , the ex , is looking at charges as well as the possibility of being paralyzed for the rest of his life . the current partner looks like he went a round with Mike Tryson, but he is alive and will heal . 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.4.15  Gsquared  replied to  Raven Wing @2.4.12    one month ago

Ha!  Thanks, Raven Wing!

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
2.4.16  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Gsquared @2.4    4 weeks ago
I would be interested in hearing about instances from American history where the Second Amendment has kept us free, or has contributed to keeping us free.  Can you please provide some examples.

It sure helped us take the rest of the continent away from the unfortunate indigenous people who were here before us.

Maybe when the Second Amendment is referring to a "free state" it means "free" as in "free beer."

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @2.4.16    4 weeks ago
It sure helped us take the rest of the continent away from the unfortunate indigenous people who were here before us

Their policy of 'open borders' didn't serve them well.

a "free state" it means "free" as in "free beer."

And who doesn't like free chicken.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
2.4.18  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.17    4 weeks ago
Their policy of 'open borders' didn't serve them well.

Nor did their lack of immunity to smallpox.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.19  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Gulliver @2.4.16    4 weeks ago

Sometimes, right or wrong, freedom is in the eyes of they who possess the most firepower.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.20  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.4.19    4 weeks ago

Gee, how profound.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.21  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.20    4 weeks ago

Many times truth is.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.22  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.4.21    4 weeks ago

It's not truth.  It's moronic.  

It's an arrogant and hateful and deadly view of the world.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.23  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.22    4 weeks ago

It is truth, but it is also a moronic  truth. It is a arrogant, deadly, and hateful view of the world. I did not say that was my view of the world, only that it's historical fact and still occurs today. I give you Xi of China and Vladimir Putin as the prime examples.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
2.4.24  charger 383  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.4.19    4 weeks ago

superior firepower is the only thing that will keep you free,  history is full of examples

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.25  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @2.4.24    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_50_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.26  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  charger 383 @2.4.24    4 weeks ago

Like the old adage of never bring a knife to a gunfight. When I was a teenager, the father of my best friend once told me that you are ever in confrontation with somebody and all you have is a knife and you pull it out, if your opponent keeps on coming, turn and run. That means he/she is crazy, they have something bigger, or both.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.5  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @2    one month ago

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
2.6  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  charger 383 @2    3 weeks ago
The Second Amendment is what keeps us free

How silly.

You think your shotgun collection is a match against a modern army.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.6.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gulliver @2.6    3 weeks ago

how are the ukrainian volenteers doing against the modern russian army ?, could be used as an insight into how things can go down if shit goes sideways 

 and it appears you have no knowledge or concept of how a 4th generation war would be fought which is what would likely happen if it came to it IF it happened in this country . it wont be classic WW2 or later battles between opponents , it would be more like afghanistan  maybe a little like vietnam vs the cong...

 also likely way above your pay grade too.....

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.6.2  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.6.1    3 weeks ago

Actually, the Ukraine has a strong standing army with a fair amount of experience fighting the Russians in the Donbas for the last 7 years. The Territorial Defence is quite good but it has a lot of army vet's from the Russian and Ukraine army. 

If things go ''sideways'' I'm assuming that you mean if there is a rebellion of US citizens against the US government/military. Afghan would be much closer than Vietnam which in fact the NVA and the cong had tanks, heavy weapons and planes and were supplied by both Russia and China. The Chinese had thousands of troops in Vietnam during our time there. I doubt there would be any country that would supply US citizens with those types of weapons. Also, the Vietminh, Vietcong and the NVA had years of combat under their belts and they had a central leadership with Minh and Giap. 

On a personal note, they were some tough SOBs to face in combat. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.6.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @2.6.2    3 weeks ago
On a personal note, they were some tough SOBs to face in combat. 

I have heard that quite often .

 i think this could turn into a very interesting discussion just on it own merits .

 i think the ukraines and russians  are on that proverbial journey of 1000 steps , and they even after 7 yrs of fighting , are basically still only on step 30 or 40 , maybe

 pretty sure those that study and theorize about these things for the military  are watching and evaluating every minute move either makes .

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.6.4  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.6.3    3 weeks ago
 i think this could turn into a very interesting discussion just on it own merits .

Indeed it could. 

i think the ukraines and russians  are on that proverbial journey of 1000 steps , and they even after 7 yrs of fighting , are basically still only on step 30 or 40 , maybe  pretty sure those that study and theorize about these things for the military  are watching and evaluating every minute move either makes .

 What was shocking was how inept the Russian army was/is. When I saw convoys of tanks on a single road with no unmounted infantry or air support protecting them I was shaking my head. 

The Russians are fighting the war (s) they have always fought, lumbering no care for how many of their soldiers are killed and no regard for civilians. The Russian army IMO has never mastered the use of aircover for ground troops and depends entirely on tanks and arty. 

The Ukrainians are quicker/more mobile with it seems to have a much better officer and NCO corps and are able to adapt to the changing environment even when vastly outgunned and outnumbered.

There will be plenty of points to be taken from this war. Drones both air and sea will be at the forefront of the discussions.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.6.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @2.6.4    3 weeks ago

you get no arguments from me on your points . i started flying hobby drones about a year ago , and i was like , i wish i had these back when i was active , they are really useful from certain perspectives .

 some of the drone groups i follow have shown how simple over the counter hobby stuff has been used to great effect .

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
2.6.6  charger 383  replied to  Gulliver @2.6    3 weeks ago

All the patriotic citizens have to do is stand up for a time.  Federal government has already shown they won't act against us, they let protesters do what they want.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.6.7  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @2.6.6    3 weeks ago

The other error some on the left make is assuming our military will follow orders that could easily be judged to be unlawful.

Bad juju for the anti gun limp wristers

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.6.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @2.6.7    3 weeks ago
assuming our military will follow orders that could easily be judged to be unlawful.

Over the years i have been involved in i cant count how many discussions on this very point .

 And it is something that most would agree give planners , statitians , stratigists and theorists nightmares and ulcers . i also believe they try to be very conservative in their best educated guesses about what they theorize will happen ,  thing is they wont know until it happens . My best guess from looking at history ? would be a conservative 45/55 split that could go either way for either side ., I cant say which side would be in the majority , too many variables to consider . the most recent that would apply in this situation is what happened at the outbreak of our civil war over 100 years ago.

 thing is , our active military  and other military components are very well versed in what is and is not a lawful order and what would be considered an unlawful order , they are also told , that if they choose not to follow an order , that is on them and will face a court of military , not civilian justice , there are big differences between the 2 . and how it would be applied , will entirely depend on the outcome and who wins . if one thinks there would be a winner at all.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.6.9  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.6.8    3 weeks ago

We had many discussions about it while I was in.    

Granted, it was many moons ago but a general consensus was, orders leveled against US citizens enumerated rights were highly possible grounds to risk court marshal.    

Specifically, refusal to issue orders to subordinates.    Orders considered to be unconstitutional towards US citizens.    Which i suspect would be much easier than refusing unlawful orders during wartime.    Like say the men in Lt Calley’s unit that refused to kill those civilians at My Lai.   Much tougher in the heat of the moment in war I’m sure.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.6.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @2.6.9    3 weeks ago

Well i have only had to deal with the enlisted oath . what SOME dont get or even know is commissioned officers take an entirely different oath on commisioning .

 just as when i was civilian LEO , the oath was rather specific , just as if i were to decide to run for and won political office , that oath is also very much different  and title specific in some cases .

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
3  MrFrost    one month ago

REPEAL, the 2nd? No. But there certainly, and obviously, needs to be some serious changes. Thoughts and prayers are not working and the free access to any and all weapons is not working. Mental health isn't the issue because other countries have mentally ill people and they don't have mass shootings. 

512

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
4  squiggy    one month ago

"When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of   one man killing 49  and injuring 53 all by himself."

At THAT time, blackpowder, (an explosive) was the only propellant available and far more suitable to bomb-making than today's nitro powders. It just didn't happen because of the people.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  squiggy @4    one month ago
It just didn't happen because of the people.

Huh?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  squiggy @4    one month ago
At THAT time, blackpowder, (an explosive) was the only propellant available

not really , there were others , i think the prussians were developing an air powered rifle at the time , and of course there were others working with different chemicals , that didnt really pan out .

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
4.2.1  squiggy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.2    one month ago

The point is that, at that time, the means of mass killing did exist ubiquitously yet just wasn't done because people hadn't fully developed as assholes.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.2.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  squiggy @4.2.1    one month ago

well according to some in the know , I was born an asshole , i just grew bigger as i aged .....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    one month ago

This is a good, logical article. Unfortunately the media would never promote this idea, and without the mass media behind you no amendment will be replaced. 

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
5.1  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago
Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain ? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic ? Why does Rice play Texas ? We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.

I'm not saying it will happen immediately but nobody thinks we will transition away from carbon fuels immediately or establish universal healthcare as a right immediately. We chose to go to the moon because it was hard and because a goal like that causes many other technological leaps to fall into place. In hindsight, we can see how important the quest was.

Stopping global warming, stopping microplastics pollution, nuclear disarmament, ending mass gun violence, achieving universal healthcare. None of these things will be easy or immediate. But we will not obtain them while courting their opposites.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Gulliver @5.1    one month ago

None of them are even remotely attainable. [deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6  Tacos!    one month ago

If I were writing the 2nd Amendment today, the right to bear arms would still exist, but it would come with greater responsibilities.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
6.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago

Exactly. 

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
6.2  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago

The author does call to repeal and replace.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
6.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago

Exactly.  It does not need to be removed, but it needs some serious revamping.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
6.3.1  seeder  Gulliver  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.3    one month ago

The biggest problem with the Second Amendment is that it is poorly written. It is too clever by a half. In the space of a single sentence it tries to establish the tension between necessary regulation and uninfringed rights and all it really accomplished was to create a 250 year argument with each side trying to reduce the other's rights to absurdity.

On the one side there is a right to reasonable access to guns and on the other side there is a right to not have to worry about getting mowed down by a machine gun in the hands of a lunatic or angry mob.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
6.3.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Gulliver @6.3.1    one month ago
on the other side there is a right to not have to worry about getting mowed down by a machine gun in the hands of a lunatic or angry mob.

Very true. One official in Texas argued that the AR-47's or AR-15's are needed to shoot feral pigs. However, I would argue that a regular Remington or other brand of regular long range rifle would do the job well, and would not need to fire like a machine gun just to hunt and shoot pigs. So in my honest opinion, that man is just making a total fool of himself just to try and justify why people need military type guns.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.3.3  JBB  replied to  Raven Wing @6.3.2    one month ago

original

For 100 years on my family's ranch in far western Oklahoma my grandpa's trusty rifle dispatched any and all coyotes or badgers or anything else bothering our livestock. Compare the bullets we used on the right with the 5.56 caliber ammunition used by the Texas shooter on the left. A 5.56 caliber round inflicts something on the order of five hundred times more tissue damage when passing through a human or an animal than conventional rounds. Those kids did not even have one chance.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.4  Sparty On  replied to  Gulliver @6.3.1    one month ago

That’s an irrational fear.    

Do you worry about getting mowed down by cars?    Should we outlaw those?    Do you lose sleep worrying about getting stabbed or blown up?     Should we outlaw knives and everyday products one could use to make a bomb?

Nah, that wouldn’t be rational either.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
6.3.5  Raven Wing  replied to  JBB @6.3.3    one month ago

Exactly. I think that someone who buys military style guns that shoots multiple rounds per second are in fact not that great of a marksman. It only takes one bullet, or perhaps two, depending on what the shooter is firing at, to neutralize the target if the shooter is any kind of good marksman, thus, no military type rifle is necessary. IMO, if the shooter needs that kind of gun to do what should only take 1-2 bullets, he/she is a piss poor marksman and fears for their own life if they miss. So spraying the target(s with a machine gun rapidity will likely neutralize the target and make them feel like 'Rambo'. 

IMHO those types of guns should not be sold to the regular populace, but, reserved for the military in combat where they would be needed.

I'm the daughter of a 15 year Policeman and a three year Texas Ranger, so yes, I do know about most guns and how to use them, and have since I was 9 y/o.  

Like some of the ladies here who have served in the military and likely were trained using guns, I'm not some empty headed dimwit  who is dumber than a door knob when it comes to guns. I was training to be a police officer myself until I was thrown from my horse and my resultant injury put me out of luck there. But, there was a few times in my life that my training in using firearms saved my life, and that of my own children.

So when I hear/read some of the Trump worshiper wimps say that such weapons as the military type firearms are necessary for people to shoot feral pigs it just makes my blood boil.

And I ask myself...."What would they say if it was one of their own children massacred in the school in Uvalda?"

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
6.3.6  afrayedknot  replied to  Raven Wing @6.3.5    one month ago

The logic some use is counterintuitive if we agree we live in a free society.

Advocates propose heightened security. To extend that logic…each and every public building would require armed guards and limited points of access, with no guarantee that it would actually work. All while ignoring the singular, central, and Valdemortian issue that cannot be named…we have a gun problem.

Deflections are as rampant as the incidents…time to address the root cause. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
6.3.7  Raven Wing  replied to  afrayedknot @6.3.6    one month ago
Deflections are as rampant as the incidents…time to address the root cause.

Totally agree. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    one month ago

Here's a fun little item

www.newsbreak.com   /news/2614771263492/video-re-emerges-of-ted-cruz-grinning-as-he-fries-bacon-on-same-gun-model-used-by-texas-school-shooter

Video re-emerges of Ted Cruz grinning as he fries bacon on same gun model used by Texas school shooter

Andrew Naughtie 2-3 minutes


As   Ted Cruz   faces criticism for his response to the   mass shooting   that left 19 children and 2 adults dead in Uvalde,   Texas   , a video has re-emerged showing the Republican senator frying and eating bacon on the same type of gun apparently used by the shooter.

In the 2015 clip, which was released while he was running for president, Mr Cruz smirkingly introduces a method for cooking breakfast: wrapping strips of bacon around the muzzle of an   AR-15   assault-style rifle and “cooking” it with the heat of gunfire.

“Mmmm,” he says, eating the results, “machine-gun bacon.”

It has been reported that two AR-15 guns were recovered from the scene of the massacre, and that the 18-year-old shooter, Salvador Ramos, purchased firearms just days before he attacked the school.

Mr Cruz, who has long cultivated an image as a culture warrior when it comes to issues like   gun control   , has already been   widely condemned   for a tweet he sent out after the Uvalde massacre, saying he and his wife were “fervently lifting up in prayer the children and families in the horrific shooting”.

Critics pointed out that Mr Cruz has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from pro-gun groups, and that he has obstructed stronger gun safety laws – this while also authoring and federal legislation to   strengthen hot air balloon regulations   after an accident in his state killed 16 people.

Later, in spoken remarks, he described the massacre as “truly horrific”, remarking that “there is nothing more evil than violent criminals who target children, and especially young children”.

However, Mr Cruz also remarked that it was always important to avoid anything that might be construed as limiting the rights of gun owners.

“Inevitably when there’s a murderer of this kind,”   he told CNN   , “you see politicians try to politicise it, you see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.”

And like various other Republicans, he also argued that one way to avoid mass casualties in school shootings would be to deploy armed law enforcement on school campuses.
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago

I guess you can't comprehend that you can do that with every weapon system.  But, lets ignore fact and push the fear.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
7.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago

Hopefully the voters will cook his bacon the next time he runs.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.2.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.2    4 weeks ago

Personally, I'd rather see Beto "Hell yes I'm coming for your guns!" O'Rourke,s cooked before Cruz's.