Founders and Framers on the People's Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[islandman]

It's as compelling as his.

I'm not being paid to educate morons.

Translation: my POV is the only legitimate POV on the subject and anything else is beneath me.

He's a pic of Byron as he read my post:

 

[Byron In Exile]

Not to mention it attracts sharks.

How'd you get to be Captain of a submarine, then?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Translation: my POV is the only legitimate POV on the subject and anything else is beneath me.

He's a pic of Byron as he read my post:

U mad, bro?

 

[islandman]

U mad, bro?

I'm not paid to get mad at idiots.


Point is, if society's definition of what a "free person" is can change in the 200+ years since the Constitution was ratified, then so too can society change the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment.

To allow for one and not the other, to pick and choose at whim to fit your skewed narrative, well, that just make you narrow-minded and a hypocrite.

The above lesson is free of charge to you, Byron. Hope it sticks.

 

[Phelia]

You should take them out first.

This is like the using a hairdryer while you're sleeping thing. They need to have a warning on the boxes. Very confusing. It really looks like a fuse once you get it in there.

How'd you get to be Captain of a submarine, then?

I just showed up at the Navy one day looking very confident.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Idiot.

Stew in your ignorance.

Let's make this rather drab accusation a little more illustriously pronounced with…ALTERNATE-VOCABULARY-VISION®:

"Dolt.

Boil in your simpleness."


"Nincompoop.

Simmer in your fatuity."


"Feeble-mind.

Broil in your obtuseness."


"Nitwit.

Brew in your ineptitude."


"Dullard.

Bake in your puerility."


"Numbskull.

Marinate in your stupefaction."


"Scatterbrain.

Percolate in your imbecility."

 

[Noor]

This is like the using a hairdryer while you're sleeping thing. They need to have a warning on the boxes. Very confusing. It really looks like a fuse once you get it in there.



I just showed up at the Navy one day looking very confident.

Stick close to your desk and never go to sea and you all may be rulers of the Queen's navy.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I'm not paid to get mad at idiots.

So you're mad because I'm more intelligent than you?

I suppose that's understandable.

It must enrage you then that I don't take you seriously when you know there are others that I do.

Well, pull yourself together.

You could find the answers if you really wanted to, but you just want to argue. And you want to argue with junk that's already been put to rest at least a hundred times in the ten years I've been here.

Been there, done that, take a number, and have a seat on the bench. I'm sure one of the fine debaters here will be along shortly to take an interest in what you have to say and give you the argument you deserve.

 

[Noor]

Maybe he would like the number 42, it's a nice one and then he would have the answer to everything.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Maybe he would like the number 42, it's a nice one and then he would have the answer to everything.

Nay, milady Noor.

42 may be nice, but 3 is a magic number.

Oh yes, it is.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Tampons are a must-have for your bug-out bag. They make it really easy to light a fire.

Lifehacker recommended using Doritos to light a fire in an emergency. They're a staple of many an Internet Prepper/Warrior's diet.

 

[islandman]

So you're mad because I'm more intelligent than you?

I suppose that's understandable.

It must enrage you then that I don't take you seriously when you know there are others that I do.

Well, pull yourself together.

You could find the answers if you really wanted to, but you just want to argue. And you want to argue with junk that's already been put to rest at least a hundred times in the ten years I've been here.

Been there, done that, take a number, and have a seat on the bench. I'm sure one of the fine debaters here will be along shortly to take an interest in what you have to say and give you the argument you deserve.

I surely hope so given that what you just gave me doubles as the lining of a bird-cage.

It very well can be that you're smarter than me....but we won't know it from your current foaming at the mouth.

 

[patient1]

I surely hope so given that what you just gave me doubles as the lining of a bird-cage.

It very well can be that you're smarter than me....but we won't know it from your current foaming at the mouth.

Oh, come on. Surely you admit Byron's "Like a printing press?" was the best post in this thread.

 

[islandman]

Oh, come on. Surely you admit Byron's "Like a printing press?" was the best post in this thread.

It was good, to be sure.

But the fact that he can treat the Constitution like a dollar-menu detracts from said post.

Put another way, broken clock, right twice a day, blah blah.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Here's what I don't understand about the liberal mindset.....

We have a shit-ton of legislation already on the books, but isn't enforced. Yet you want more legislation.

We have something like 300,000,000 people in this country,but you think losing 12,000 of them every year is so awful that we have to try and legislate it away.

According to an FBI report posted in another thread, there were only 323 murders involving a rifle in 2011 (last year reported). That 323 includes all types of rifles. All of them. So even if you banned the AR15, you wouldn't accomplish anything substantive because they are/were used so rarely in the commission of a crime.

Even the politicians in Connecticut have admitted that none of the gun legislation they passed post-sandy hook would have stopped the murder spree. They already had some of the toughest laws in the nation, and all of the weapons were bought legally, yet they added more garbage on top of it. What's the point of passing legislation that you know won't fix an issue?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Here's what I don't understand about the liberal mindset.....

We have a shit-ton of legislation already on the books, but isn't enforced. Yet you want more legislation.

We have something like 300,000,000 people in this country,but you think losing 12,000 of them every year is so awful that we have to try and legislate it away.

According to an FBI report posted in another thread, there were only 323 murders involving a rifle in 2011 (last year reported). That 323 includes all types of rifles. All of them. So even if you banned the AR15, you wouldn't accomplish anything substantive because they are/were used so rarely in the commission of a crime.

Even the politicians in Connecticut have admitted that none of the gun legislation they passed post-sandy hook would have stopped the murder spree. They already had some of the toughest laws in the nation, and all of the weapons were bought legally, yet they added more garbage on top of it. What's the point of passing legislation that you know won't fix an issue?

It's not complicated.

A law that isn't enforced functionally isn't a law. While I don't honestly believe there are tons of laws that aren't being enforced, that seems to be stuff that everybody knows but when pressed can't name. But regardless go back to start if they aren't enforcing it then it's not a law.

12k people a year die (more than that are injured or threatened) and we try to legislate it away. 3k people die ONCE and we raise heaven and earth to find one man causing at minimum another 3k deaths of Americans. You want to start ignoring the small stuff lets start with the actual small stuff. Most of the rest of the stuff on your list we do try to legislate a way. We have all sorts of laws for cars, we try to fund stuff for health care (we have less luck there than with gun control in general.)

You're right, we really should be banning hand guns. But people aren't afraid of handguns. I'd quite happily ban hand guns and require every man woman and child to own and train with an AR15 twice a year.

Sandy Hook is still an isolated incident. Might some of this have prevented any of the other 12k, per year?

Of course you can always just admit you like the freedom and don't care about the price paid for it. No boo hoos just like we don't cry (most of us) about the crooks that get to walk because you rate a trial and you need a warrant to search for evidence and all the other things that come intact with that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

We have a shit-ton of legislation already on the books, but isn't enforced. Yet you want more legislation.

No, people want effective legislation and enforcement that ends with positive results. If the current system isn't working or the people are displeased with it, we start bucking for new/improved ideas to tackle the issues facing a given jurisdiction. It's how things are supposed to work....trial and error to solve a problem, why is that so negative to you?

What's the point of passing legislation that you know won't fix an issue?

Idk....why do republicans keep with the war on drugs, a destructive and outrageously expensive republican failure by any measure? Best part is when you lot send the DEA into CA/CO/WA/MI etc. Then turn around and talk out of your ass about freedom and states rights....like the right wing gives a flying fuck about either of those things.

Every group does stupid shit....herd mentality reverts people to herd thinking....just follow the asshole in front of you right off the cliff. You can point it out in any political faction. The real question is who is the most destructive/negative and who is the most constructive/ positive?

 

[patient1]

Idk....why do republicans keep with the war on drugs, a destructive and outrageously expensive republican failure by any measure?

Is it because the prison contractors are Republicans, or Republican contributors?
Just asking.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Sean, Botany:

You cannot say that the system doesn't work if you're not applying the system. That's what we're doing right now. It is commonplace in the court system to waive the gun violation during the plea bargaining process. That means a criminal who is busted for using a gun during a robbery (two separate charges) will be offered a chance to plead guilty to the robbery, and the prosecution will waive the gun charge as a bit of honey. It gets the perp behind bars, and streamlines the court process because they don't have to go through a lengthy court case. Often, the gun charge will carry a mandatory minimum sentence, but the prosecution doesn't want to clog up the courts or the jails any more than they are already.

"Despite political rhetoric about enforcing gun laws on the books, it isn't happening," said Matt Bennett, a spokesman for the foundation. "Two percent of federal gun crimes are prosecuted and it's an absolute outrage." http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Few-gun-laws-enforced-1114708.php

And that's just "federal" laws. Take into account local and state laws and you've got a bunch of shit that's not getting used.

The problem with "trial and error" legislation is that it doesn't do any good. The old laws are never taken off the books, and the new laws only result in an increase in beurocracy.

Remember, laws don't stop criminals - they only clean up after the mess has been made. Like we've seen recently in Connecticut, not a single law passed after the sandy hook murders would have prevented the sandy hook murders, and the politicians admitted it. What, then, was the point of passing them?

Republican war on drugs?

"Although Bill Clinton advocated for treatment instead of incarceration during his 1992 presidential campaign, after his first few months in the White House he reverted to the drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors by continuing to escalate the drug war. Notoriously, Clinton rejected a U.S. Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. He also rejected, with the encouragement of drug czar General Barry McCaffrey, health secretary Donna Shalala’s advice to end the federal ban on funding for syringe access programs." http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war

In 1935, president Franklin D. Roosevelt publicly supported the adoption of the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The New York Times used the headline "Roosevelt Asks Narcotic War Aid".[19][20]


But you're right that I do value freedom and I do acknowledge that freedom comes at a price.

You say you want freedom to smoke weed, great. I'm all for that. I want the same freedom to do what I want..... but you tell me I have to jump through a dozen hoops even though I've never done anything illegal to warrant the suspicion. You want to preclude me from exercising an enumerated right because of something that might happen in the future. Might. ???

Or, you want to preclude me from exercising my enumerated right because of something someone else did. Every time a muslim detonates a bomb, the first thing the media and politicos say is that we shouldn't blame all muslims for the actions of a deranged few. Well, why doesn't that apply to guns and the people that own them? Why do we blame the driver that was drunk and not the car he was driving drunk in? Who's calling for tougher licensing and regulation on automobile use?

Why not do the same thing for the 1st Amendment? We've all seen the damage that can be done by printing or televising lies. So, why not strictly limit internet access? Why not make all "reporters" go through an intensive training process and background check, then make them get licenses that have to be renewed every other year? And anyone posting on the internet forums, like this one, would have to be reviewed by a board before their comments could actually be posted. And, only certain types of internet sites will be allowed - we wouldn't want to encourage rape or pedophilia, after all.

And just for reference:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/opinion/avlon-obama-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/91-1970/h355
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/91-1970/s584
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/h787
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/s683
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/jimmy-carter-marijuana-legalization-91561.html


You'll note that for all the talk about a republican "war on drugs", there sure are a lot of democrats voting in favor of it. In all the cases, the president wouldn't have a bill to sign if it hadn't been advanced by the democrats. So much for blaming it on the republicans.

 

[colddiesel]

Some jobs required a loyalty examination and loyalty oath, which included the question, "Do you advocate overthrow of the United States Government by violence or subversion?"

Most people circle violence.

Best post on this thread.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Remember, laws don't stop criminals -

Sure they do. Otherwise, why have them?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There are no such things as natural rights, because there is no such thing as natural law.

In short, your life is ruled by brute force and rights are only what the victor allows you...

 

[JohnnySavage]

Sean, Botany:

blather removed.

You failed to address Sean's point.

By your own admission, four times the number of people die every year from gun violence than died at the hands of terrorists on 9/11.

But to avenge those 3,000 deaths, we spent trillions of dollars, mobilized the armed forces (and got more service members killed than the deaths they were avenging), invaded two countries, engaged in nation building, erected barriers to public buildings, subjected all Americans to searches (both personal and electronic), and generally changed our way of life.

You have a much greater chance of dying as a result of gun violence then you do dying at the hands of terrorists, yet we have a "war on terrorism" but no war on guns.

 

[Ishmael]

You failed to address Sean's point.

By your own admission, four times the number of people die every year from gun violence than died at the hands of terrorists on 9/11.

But to avenge those 3,000 deaths, we spent trillions of dollars, mobilized the armed forces (and got more service members killed than the deaths they were avenging), invaded two countries, engaged in nation building, erected barriers to public buildings, subjected all Americans to searches (both personal and electronic), and generally changed our way of life.

You have a much greater chance of dying as a result of gun violence then you do dying at the hands of terrorists, yet we have a "war on terrorism" but no war on guns.

Probably because a great number of us understand that "wars" against inanimate objects is a fruitless waste of time and national treasure. is. "The War on Drugs."

Further counting only the lives lost is a lopsided anti-intellectual point of view. That argument must be balanced by the number of lives saved, or potentially saved, by the use of firearms.

Ishmael

 

[BotanyBoy]

Is it because the prison contractors are Republicans, or Republican contributors?
Just asking.

Yes.

Sean, Botany:

You cannot say that the system doesn't work if you're not applying the system

So write a law that can be applied.....

The problem with "trial and error" legislation is that it doesn't do any good. The old laws are never taken off the books, and the new laws only result in an increase in beurocracy.

Except all laws are done that way and quite a few have resulted in major social changes far beyond beurocracy.

Republican war on drugs?

Since Nixon it's pretty much been primarily a GOP money funnel, Reagan's support for the war on drugs sealed the deal. Not to mention look at all the red states that have decided to kick that Nixon/Reagan shit out of their state.

OH wait those are mostly NOT republican states. Gee....I wonder why on earth republican states who have a 100+ billion dollar a year interest in keeping weed illegal would continue to keep it as such. Not to mention holding the DOJ and POTUS's feet to the fire under constitutional obligation and threat of impeachment to go into states that have legalized in some capacity and go all federal supremacy on them. Because republicans are all about freedom, states rights and a limited government right? My ass....

You'll note that for all the talk about a republican "war on drugs", there sure are a lot of democrats voting in favor of it. In all the cases, the president wouldn't have a bill to sign if it hadn't been advanced by the democrats. So much for blaming it on the republicans.

The map above says otherwise.

I'm not saying the dem's haven't gotten their dicks wet on the war on drugs but it was pushed and receives pressure to continue from the RW for the funding. Military/police/prison contracts worth billions a year going right into RW contributors and corporate interest. You can say whatever you want, I'll follow the money and the money is currently pointing the finger square the fuck at the GOP in this instance.

You say you want freedom to smoke weed, great. I'm all for that. I want the same freedom to do what I want..... but you tell me I have to jump through a dozen hoops even though I've never done anything illegal to warrant the suspicion.

Except you want to purchase a device who's primary design objective is to kill, with zero oversight....

You want to preclude me from exercising an enumerated right because of something that might happen in the future. Might. ???

Yea...along with pretty much everything else.

Who's calling for tougher licensing and regulation on automobile use?

Various groups like MADD and the one trying to get old people off the road.

Why not do the same thing for the 1st Amendment?

You cannot slander, you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded building, you cannot give hate speeches, you cannot give speeches that incite violence, destruction of property or rioting, you cannot conduct religious activities in any official state operations or as a state official.

None of your rights are unlimited.....they all have restrictions/regulations....deal with it.