Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KoHeartsGPA

    2561

  • datzenmike

    2330

  • Draker

    2054

  • a.d._510_n_ok

    2012

Top Posters In This Topic

 

BS. The militia IS the people, so read it again and it says the people should be able to bear arms in order to fulfill their role/obligation and definition as the militia. Not much sense having an unarmed militia. So bearing arms and the right to, is for militia purposes no mention of personal defense but national defense.

 

mi·li·tia

məˈliSHə/

noun

noun: militia; plural noun: militias

 

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

 

Origin

late 16th century: from Latin, literally ‘military service,’ from miles, milit- ‘soldier.’

Translate militia to

Use over time for: militia

 

 

Stop making up your own version

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Sorry mike, the scotus has spoken. The people are the militia, no further interpretation necessary.

 

Clearly the right of people (militia) to be armed is solely.... 'necessary to the security of the free state' There's no mention of anything else.

 

 

National defense against enemies foreign & domestic (aka one's own government).

 

Doesn't say 'enemies foreign or domestic'  only says... 'necessary to the security of the free state'

Link to comment

 

 

It says nothing of obligation to the militia. It just plainly says we can have guns, period.

No it doesn't you're close though. See below...

 

 

Did you even watch the video?

Yes and they are wrong. If the part about the peoples right not be infringed is after a comma then it's part of the first part about the militia. If it was more special or equal to the front part about the militia there would have been a period separating it. Militia = people need to be armed for 'the security of a free state'.

Link to comment

 

Yes and they are wrong. If the part about the peoples right not be infringed is after a comma then it's part of the first part about the militia. If it was more special or equal to the front part about the militia there would have been a period separating it. Militia = people need to be armed for 'the security of a free state'.

 

 

 

Like the oxford comma Mike? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

If you remove the reason for the militia it reads.... A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Like I said before an unarmed militia is not ideal. If this was two separate and equal things they would be two sentences like this...

 

1/ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

 

2/ The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Now it makes total sense.

Link to comment

As expected the NRA is being made out as the "boogie man",......instead of placing blame where it belongs.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/cnn-crowd-boos-pro-2a-rape-survivor/

 

The crowd at a Wednesday CNN town hall on the Parkland shooting booed when NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch brought up a rape survivor who supports the Second Amendment.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/us/florida-school-shooting-town-hall-latest/

 

lawmakers and the NRA talk about guns

 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/02/21/cnns-tapper-sits-back-student-equates-rubio-school-shooter

 

KASKY: No more NRA money? More NRA money?

RUBIO: That -- that is the wrong way to look -- first of all, the answer is, people buy into my agenda --

KASKY: You can say "No."

Link to comment

He should have quit while he was ahead...

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

 

This is clear as can be. It got tangled up later to where it is today.

 

 

I'm off to bed....

Link to comment

I generally don't use it as I assume the reader has the sense to know what I'm saying. It's not obligatory anyway. Those that don't 'get it' truly don't get it anyway.

 

 

I only referred to it as there was a legal case where the oxford comma was very relevant to the outcome of the case  -

 

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/the-case-of-the-$13-million-comma/8372956

Link to comment

If you remove the reason for the militia it reads.... A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Like I said before an unarmed militia is not ideal. If this was two separate and equal things they would be two sentences like this...

 

1/ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

 

2/ The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Now it makes total sense.

 

Wow, so we have read it wrong since 1791!? Wow! Glad you fixed it for us.

 

Canada saves the day!! Surrender you arms or join the Militia! 

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 4
Link to comment

It don't matter. Holes in the system is letting nut jobs have guns, in this case assault rifles, and Cruz should not have owned one.

 

Yes, that is the bottom line. We can go back and forth about the Second or current guns. But it is the fact that this nut had a gun, legally, is the issue at hand. 

Link to comment

Yes, that is the bottom line. We can go back and forth about the Second or current guns. But it is the fact that this nut had a gun, legally, is the issue at hand.

Agreed. Thus the discussion about the second ("legally"), and his weapon ("gun"). Completely relevant discussion. New generations keep on coming, and there will undoubtedly always be crazy people with every new batch. We can do a bunch to get help to these people and we should. But there is also things we can do to reduce the opportunities available to them to lash out violently. Our culture trains killers to use guns. News, military service, movies, video games, etc. US culture (yes, others too). I don't think these things make killers, but rather, killers are programmed to use guns in our society. Then they go on meds that make them feel no remorse nor emotion in general, and killing seems like a great way to wrap up a shitty existence. If they didnt have the fucked up brain chemistry, this wouldn't happen, if they didn't have the meds, this wouldn't happen, if they didn't have the guns, this wouldn't happen.

 

Fix the person, another will come.

Fix the meds, another will be developed and approved

Fix the availability of guns, they will find another weapon.

 

So we can:

A. Do nothing

B. Work on one of the three

C. Work on everything available.

 

Dems want to work on all three.

Republicans see the pitfalls of those efforts.

 

Welcome to the benefits, and pitfalls of the two party system.

 

I want to focus on the drugs. And I also want people to be vetted (background checks minimum)before purchasing guns. Private sales should be brokered by licensed sellers (with background checks minimum). And inheritance of licensed guns shall be allowed but also through a licensed broker (federally paid for in these cases).

Link to comment

Agreed. Thus the discussion about the second ("legally"), and his weapon ("gun"). Completely relevant discussion. New generations keep on coming, and there will undoubtedly always be crazy people with every new batch. We can do a bunch to get help to these people and we should. But there is also things we can do to reduce the opportunities available to them to lash out violently. Our culture trains killers to use guns. News, military service, movies, video games, etc. US culture (yes, others too). I don't think these things make killers, but rather, killers are programmed to use guns in our society. Then they go on meds that make them feel no remorse nor emotion in general, and killing seems like a great way to wrap up a shitty existence. If they didnt have the fucked up brain chemistry, this wouldn't happen, if they didn't have the meds, this wouldn't happen, if they didn't have the guns, this wouldn't happen.

 

Fix the person, another will come.

Fix the meds, another will be developed and approved

Fix the availability of guns, they will find another weapon.

 

So we can:

A. Do nothing

B. Work on one of the three

C. Work on everything available.

 

Dems want to work on all three.

Republicans see the pitfalls of those efforts.

 

Welcome to the benefits, and pitfalls of the two party system.

 

I want to focus on the drugs. And I also want people to be vetted (background checks minimum)before purchasing guns. Private sales should be brokered by licensed sellers (with background checks minimum). And inheritance of licensed guns shall be allowed but also through a licensed broker (federally paid for in these cases).

I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, of course there are a whole bunch of caveats and other issues involved. As stated before no system will be perfect, as it is we are already near the 1 in a million level for the issues that do happen, (excepting suicide and gang related).

 

I think most people, pro or anti gun, are of the mind that mentally ill people, or those under the influence of strong medications, should probably not own guns or at least not until such time as they are of "sound mind". With of course all due process followed and some reasonable mechanism for removal of these designations should the person no longer be unwell.

 

"And I also want people to be vetted (background checks minimum)before purchasing guns. Private sales should be brokered by licensed sellers (with background checks minimum). And inheritance of licensed guns shall be allowed but also through a licensed broker (federally paid for in these cases). "

 

Background checks are already required everywhere for guns purchased from a dealer. Private sales in most states also must go through a dealer. Inheritance varies from state to state.

 

Anyways the point is for the VAST majority of gun sales a background check (takes about 5 minutes) is required. However, there is very little actual enforcement should you fail the background check and it is not well populated with people (mentally ill, on strong pharmaceuticals, etc...) that really should not own guns. Almost all the situations described already have laws concerning this, the problem is the CURRENT LAW is not well ENFORCED.

 

So I have a hard time believing NEW laws are going to help do anything but prohibit or have a "chilling effect" on law-abiding citizens, which make up the majority of people buying guns. 

 

The reason this is a fight is between the two political parties, is because the left has made it very very clear that "reasonable gun control" is not the end game at all, just a process for what they truly desire which is a complete ban on guns. 

 

AVHITQB.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Yet, you care nothing that 215 people die per day in the US of excessive alcohol consumption, plus the other immeasurable negative impacts of alcohol on every other facet of life.

 

Where in the hell did you get the impression I "care nothing" about that, or any other preventable cause of unnatural death?

 

Are you goading me into a debate that alcoholism in the US during the early 20th century, and the abject failure of the 18th Amendment has some correlation with gun regulation efforts today? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

It don't matter. Holes in the system is letting nut jobs have guns, in this case SEMIAUTOMATIC rifles, and Cruz should not have owned one.

Fixed.

If you don’t really know what you’re talking about, what’s the point of talking? Assault rifle is a classification that has the intrinsic quality of being select fire, meaning capable of automatic fire with one squeeze and f the trigger. It’s a common talking point of liberal misinformationists to refer to any scary semiautomatic sporting carbine as assault rifle with the intent of fear mongering.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

The reason this is a fight is between the two political parties, is because the left has made it very very clear that "reasonable gun control" is not the end game at all, just a process for what they truly desire which is a complete ban on guns. 

 

Bias much Doc? Can the left say the right has made it very very clear that "reasonable gun control" is not the end game at all, just a process for what they truly desire which is a complete ban on limiting open cary for all?

 

Obama had a democratic house and senate and did NOTHING to ban guns. Can we stop demonizing the other side and look at ourself for a change? 

Link to comment

Agreed. Thus the discussion about the second ("legally"), and his weapon ("gun"). Completely relevant discussion. New generations keep on coming, and there will undoubtedly always be crazy people with every new batch. We can do a bunch to get help to these people and we should. But there is also things we can do to reduce the opportunities available to them to lash out violently. Our culture trains killers to use guns. News, military service, movies, video games, etc. US culture (yes, others too). I don't think these things make killers, but rather, killers are programmed to use guns in our society. Then they go on meds that make them feel no remorse nor emotion in general, and killing seems like a great way to wrap up a shitty existence. If they didnt have the fucked up brain chemistry, this wouldn't happen, if they didn't have the meds, this wouldn't happen, if they didn't have the guns, this wouldn't happen.

 

Fix the person, another will come.

Fix the meds, another will be developed and approved

Fix the availability of guns, they will find another weapon.

 

So we can:

A. Do nothing

B. Work on one of the three

C. Work on everything available.

 

Dems want to work on all three.

Republicans see the pitfalls of those efforts.

 

Welcome to the benefits, and pitfalls of the two party system.

 

I want to focus on the drugs. And I also want people to be vetted (background checks minimum)before purchasing guns. Private sales should be brokered by licensed sellers (with background checks minimum). And inheritance of licensed guns shall be allowed but also through a licensed broker (federally paid for in these cases).

 

Great point Jesse C & tr8er. Bipolar Disorder is one of the most misdiagnosed mental illnesses out there, and often represents with intense anxiety. If a family Dr. or psychiatrist misses the whole picture and prescribes a powerful benzodiazepine to control the anxiety rather than address the underlying biological cause, it can have disastrous consequences including prolonged psychotic episodes. Incompetence will always be a factor, but with a managed care system that gives Drs 15 minutes of face time with clients, it razes the potential for mistakes like this to happen.

 

I tell you what though, anyone who provided mental health services to Cruz is getting their ass reamed with all the tenderness of a prison rape.

Link to comment

I know teachers. Many of them. I sit down to play poker with 6 or seven out of maybe 30 every week. We discuss this topic at times. Most of them is say are gun owners. Most are adamantly opposed to bringing a gun to school. This is the huge flaw in this. Hard enough to find good teachers. Finding teachers who will carry a gun to class will be almost impossible and will certainly reduce the quality stsndard of teachers. So that's just babble to shift narrative. Not that the fantasy doesn't work, just that it isn't a feasible option.

 

And quite frankly, I don't think you are right about the left. I believe the right has made it entirely clear that "reasonable gun control" is not the end game for the left. And they've got ammunition on that claim from the nutty end of the left. Yeah, there are people on the extreme end of both poles who have obnoxious positions and it hinders us from reasonable discussion. Especially when they are propogantised. Obama, the "anti gun superhero" who wants all gun destroyed right? What did he do in office? He expanded gun rights on trains and national parks. The only two gun laws in his term to my knowledge. But he did want to increase background checks, ban high capacity magazines federally, and define banned assault rifle features. But he didn't pass any laws to that effect. All he got that impacted our rights was a mental health warning added to the federal background check. Trump already removed that. Basically, what I'm saying is that the left is being made out to be after all our guns. The NRA is implicit in this effort. They heavily labeled Obama in both elections as the gun antichrist. It was just political. It was just to sway votes. That said, if a candidate did come along who actually wanted to take away all guns, they wouldn't stand a fucking chance. So they'd likely lie till elected. This fact makes the NRA propaganda believable. Basically, the right has the cards stacked. Senate, house, Supreme Court, executive. So... How exactly will a sensible approach get out of hand right now? ALLOW gun violence research to be conducted to find correlations, effects, probabilities, mental links, drug links, etc. currently it is illegal for the federal government to research this topic. And have a discussion without this defensive barrier.

 

Easy for me I suppose. I'm kinda in the middle. Guns are a critical element in survival. And I feel they are also a very dangerous tool with definite potential to infringe on our right to life and liberty. So balance is needed.

 

And stupid cartoons illustrating a cake getting divided is painfully shy of reality. And the fact that that level of information informs a demographic should be far more embarrassing than it seems to be.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.