User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Topic Author
Posts: 1523
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:31 am

G'day, Ladies and Gentlemen.

These days, I don't post too often. And I am about to post about something which really splits opinion, with my own opinion.

Have a read:

https://chucklescarter.blogspot.com.au/ ... -guns.html

Now, I understand that this post will upset a lot of people, particularly Americans. However the reason I am posting is not for you to flame the crap out of me, or belittle my opinion in any way, I am posting in the hope that someone can explain the other side of the argument to me in a way that I can understand. Currently, I cannot understand why any person outside of a regulated militia needs a semi-automatic weapon, other than because they have an interest in guns. There's nothing wrong with liking guns, and having them for that reason.

Anyway, I welcome a respectful debate from both sides and I hope to get some feedback on both sides of the argument here.

Thanks for your time.

C.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! www.gofundme.com/lineupandwait
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:19 am

As someone who has owned guns at various times in my life after having been brought up as a kid around them I also can't understand the fascination so many people have with guns.

As for long guns, as I remember they were for hunting when I was younger. A hunter was supposed to take pride in his stalking, tracking and shooting skills and as such there was never a reason to have more than three rounds in your clip. Where I grew up people who loaded a full 8 or (god forbid) 20 round clip were seen as neophytes, city dwellers or psychos of some sort. Pump shotguns were required to have a spacer inserted so that they could only hold three rounds, nobody I knew ever took the spacer out unless they were just fooling around, when you were hunting you only loaded up three rounds. As I see it, anybody who wants more than that isn't interested in hunting animals or birds, they are dreaming of shooting humans.

That's not OK in my book. I can't understand why that idea has become so socially acceptable. If you're loading up to shoot humans it would seem that you need to take a time out and ask yourself if you really know what you're up to. If you want to protect yourself and your family the only reasonable course of action along these lines is to do all you can to stay out of gunfights. Really. I can understand if you're going gold mining on the Amazon and situations like that, but if you're living anywhere in the US with a functioning sheriffs department and you want to load up on firepower, I think you need to have a sit down talk it over with an adult. If you think you'll ever need more than a 12 gauge, with three rounds, I think your imagination is running wild no matter where you are in the civilized world.

Then there are the deluded folk who actually think that there may come a time when they would want to take up arms against the republic, which is a ludicrous idea. Do you seriously think you might someday take on your local sheriffs department? Or the state police? Or do you seriously think these people and their social set might want to join up with you and take on the Feds? Anyone who uses this line of reasoning to justify their (or anyone else's) right to own guns is essentially a seditious criminal in my book and they should be identified and stripped of their hardware as a normal course of events.

You better believe that the government will always have more firepower than you. Always, as in each and every instance. So forget about that.

Then there are the doomsdayers, who apparently spend too much time watching end of days movies of one stripe or another. Who would even take them seriously?

Actual gun collectors? They are few and far between, they can be licensed and permitted to carry on as long as they have decent security for their guns.

This leaves handguns, which can be useful for protecting ones castle. But handguns are a major problem in an urban environment. I don't see why anyone can object if a city or other metropolitan agency which has the support of more than 50% of the citizens would outright ban handguns among the civilian population.

As far as I am concerned, gun nuts are just that: nutcases. And I am essentially a pro gun guy.
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1081
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:23 am

i grew up around guns, learned to respect them and lock them up when not in use. I also don't understand people working themselves into a frenzy about someone taking their guns away from them. I am for common sense governing. Please take guns away from the mentally ill, Please take away any and all types of accessories such as bump stock that is not protected under the 2nd amendment like so many claim. The device is not a gun. I don't understand why people are afraid of common sense gun laws. Sadly I've noticed it the same people who believe in govt conspiracy theories. There is a pattern of behavior, that we really got to stop ignoring . Not to mention that the NRA lobby has way too much power. They should be the ones we fear, not our govt.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:38 am

I don't think that gun laws that allow the populace to own military weapons are "common sense gun laws".
There is no reason for a civilian to own an automatic feeding rifle, or a rifle which holds more than four rounds (one in the chamber and three in the magazine.) It's senseless to allow what is going on now.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3667
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:04 pm

salttee wrote:
As someone who has owned guns at various times in my life after having been brought up as a kid around them I also can't understand the fascination so many people have with guns.

As for long guns, as I remember they were for hunting when I was younger. A hunter was supposed to take pride in his stalking, tracking and shooting skills and as such there was never a reason to have more than three rounds in your clip. Where I grew up people who loaded a full 8 or (god forbid) 20 round clip were seen as neophytes, city dwellers or psychos of some sort. Pump shotguns were required to have a spacer inserted so that they could only hold three rounds, nobody I knew ever took the spacer out unless they were just fooling around, when you were hunting you only loaded up three rounds. As I see it, anybody who wants more than that isn't interested in hunting animals or birds, they are dreaming of shooting humans.

That's not OK in my book. I can't understand why that idea has become so socially acceptable. If you're loading up to shoot humans it would seem that you need to take a time out and ask yourself if you really know what you're up to. If you want to protect yourself and your family the only reasonable course of action along these lines is to do all you can to stay out of gunfights. Really. I can understand if you're going gold mining on the Amazon and situations like that, but if you're living anywhere in the US with a functioning sheriffs department and you want to load up on firepower, I think you need to have a sit down talk it over with an adult. If you think you'll ever need more than a 12 gauge, with three rounds, I think your imagination is running wild no matter where you are in the civilized world.

Then there are the deluded folk who actually think that there may come a time when they would want to take up arms against the republic, which is a ludicrous idea. Do you seriously think you might someday take on your local sheriffs department? Or the state police? Or do you seriously think these people and their social set might want to join up with you and take on the Feds? Anyone who uses this line of reasoning to justify their (or anyone else's) right to own guns is essentially a seditious criminal in my book and they should be identified and stripped of their hardware as a normal course of events.

You better believe that the government will always have more firepower than you. Always, as in each and every instance. So forget about that.

Then there are the doomsdayers, who apparently spend too much time watching end of days movies of one stripe or another. Who would even take them seriously?

Actual gun collectors? They are few and far between, they can be licensed and permitted to carry on as long as they have decent security for their guns.

This leaves handguns, which can be useful for protecting ones castle. But handguns are a major problem in an urban environment. I don't see why anyone can object if a city or other metropolitan agency which has the support of more than 50% of the citizens would outright ban handguns among the civilian population.

As far as I am concerned, gun nuts are just that: nutcases. And I am essentially a pro gun guy.


If anyone has seen the Jim Jefferies comedy segment that goes around Facebook everytime there is a shooting he makes these points.

    - For those whom think that you are going to take on the government. "You do realize that the government has drones right. You are bringing guns to a drone fight!!"
    - For those whom think a gun will protect you and your family. Having it easily accessed for protection could result in one of your kids finding it and shooting one of their siblings, their friends or their parents.
    - Having it locked up the protection is taken away if you have to unlock a safe within seconds.
    - Also some of the performers at the music festival had guns in their tour bus and didn't get them because they knew had they then the authorities would have thought they were the shooter

I agree 100% with your take on the hunting if you actually treat it like a sport and shoot deer (as an example) and actually eat it after then go ahead. Or if you engage in sport shooting like skit shooting and target competition then have at it haus.

However there are a lot of people that literally release caged birds and shoot them for sport or those with enough money will go to Africa and shoot some of the most majestic animals we have on the planet for kicks. That is disgusting!!
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Topic Author
Posts: 1523
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:04 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
If anyone has seen the Jim Jefferies comedy segment that goes around Facebook everytime there is a shooting he makes these points.

    - For those whom think that you are going to take on the government. "You do realize that the government has drones right. You are bringing guns to a drone fight!!"
    - For those whom think a gun will protect you and your family. Having it easily accessed for protection could result in one of your kids finding it and shooting one of their siblings, their friends or their parents.
    - Having it locked up the protection is taken away if you have to unlock a safe within seconds.
    - Also some of the performers at the music festival had guns in their tour bus and didn't get them because they knew had they then the authorities would have thought they were the shooter


Honestly, I've always wondered about the gun laws in the USA but it was the Jim Jefferies sketch that really made me look a bit deeper into it. I can't understand the idea that increasing the number of deadly weapons makes America a safer place. That's why I've come back to this forum which I know has plenty of members from the USA to perhaps enlighten me on the mindset behind it?
I came, I saw, I Concorde! www.gofundme.com/lineupandwait
 
330west
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:40 pm

EGTESkyGod wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:
If anyone has seen the Jim Jefferies comedy segment that goes around Facebook everytime there is a shooting he makes these points.

    - For those whom think that you are going to take on the government. "You do realize that the government has drones right. You are bringing guns to a drone fight!!"
    - For those whom think a gun will protect you and your family. Having it easily accessed for protection could result in one of your kids finding it and shooting one of their siblings, their friends or their parents.
    - Having it locked up the protection is taken away if you have to unlock a safe within seconds.
    - Also some of the performers at the music festival had guns in their tour bus and didn't get them because they knew had they then the authorities would have thought they were the shooter


Honestly, I've always wondered about the gun laws in the USA but it was the Jim Jefferies sketch that really made me look a bit deeper into it. I can't understand the idea that increasing the number of deadly weapons makes America a safer place. That's why I've come back to this forum which I know has plenty of members from the USA to perhaps enlighten me on the mindset behind it?


I don't think it was ever about making America safer but rather making insecure and fearful Americans feel safer.
Always fly first class, otherwise your heirs will.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13246
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:03 am

I own 2 weapons, both for target shooting and home protection. One 22 and one 357/38. I have owned pistols most of my life, plus a few 22 rifles in my youth. When I go to the indoor range to fire, I am amazed at the weapons being fired. These people would fire an anti-tank gun if allowed. Gun nut fits the description. The expense must be horrendous, and they do not all look like millionaires to me. They pound you even with protection. I just love the Desert Eagles, you think a hand grenade is going off next to you. I step back when they are next to me. I support gun ownership, but these assault weapons should be more controlled than they are. Thank the good old NRA and congress for this madness, also a few mad people of course. :duck:
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9492
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:06 am

330west wrote:
I don't think it was ever about making America safer but rather making insecure and fearful Americans feel safer.

That's not a fair assessment. The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow citizens to take up arms and defend the country and themselves against tyranny. Whether that be from outside or inside the USA. However, in my opinion, from what the 2nd Amendment in a full reading states, the founders intended communities to organize and form militias for this purpose. This happened early on but was superseded by the formation of a standing military making militia's superfluous.

Nowadays the 2nd Amendment has been reinterpreted and parsed, as has much of the Constitution, into a no holds barred extreme version. AS it has been interpreted in this way it will likely have new interpretations in the future and I am confident these will reign in the free for all that currently exists with guns.

Ultimately sometime in the future a new amendment will need to resolve the problem.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
330west
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:20 am

Tugger wrote:
330west wrote:
I don't think it was ever about making America safer but rather making insecure and fearful Americans feel safer.

That's not a fair assessment. The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow citizens to take up arms and defend the country and themselves against tyranny. Whether that be from outside or inside the USA. However, in my opinion, from what the 2nd Amendment in a full reading states, the founders intended communities to organize and form militias for this purpose. This happened early on but was superseded by the formation of a standing military making militia's superfluous.

Nowadays the 2nd Amendment has been reinterpreted and parsed, as has much of the Constitution, into a no holds barred extreme version. AS it has been interpreted in this way it will likely have new interpretations in the future and I am confident these will reign in the free for all that currently exists with guns.

Ultimately sometime in the future a new amendment will need to resolve the problem.

Tugg


Whatever you say Mr. Poverty-isn't-a-thing.

viewtopic.php?t=1363807
Last edited by 330west on Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Always fly first class, otherwise your heirs will.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:21 am

Tugger wrote:
Ultimately sometime in the future a new amendment will need to resolve the problem.

I don't think so. The Constitution was pretty clear when it said "well regulated militia". We just need Supreme Court justices with the reading skill to understand those words.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:23 am

salttee wrote:
I don't think that gun laws that allow the populace to own military weapons are "common sense gun laws".
There is no reason for a civilian to own an automatic feeding rifle, or a rifle which holds more than four rounds (one in the chamber and three in the magazine.) It's senseless to allow what is going on now.


The common sense gun laws, are a total repeal of the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA, in my opinion. Its senseless in whose opinion? Yours? Because being able to own rifles, that the military uses (which is already illegal), is sensible to me. Shall not be infringed is clear to me, if its not to you, maybe its time to start a constitutional amendment process...

I own numerous guns, many many dozens. If you want to take them, come take them, but you're going to need guns to do it...
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13246
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:30 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
salttee wrote:
I don't think that gun laws that allow the populace to own military weapons are "common sense gun laws".
There is no reason for a civilian to own an automatic feeding rifle, or a rifle which holds more than four rounds (one in the chamber and three in the magazine.) It's senseless to allow what is going on now.


The common sense gun laws, are a total repeal of the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA, in my opinion. Its senseless in whose opinion? Yours? Because being able to own rifles, that the military uses (which is already illegal), is sensible to me. Shall not be infringed is clear to me, if its not to you, maybe its time to start a constitutional amendment process...

I own numerous guns, many many dozens. If you want to take them, come take them, but you're going to need guns to do it...



Do you have weapons that are of the type that most people want controlled? If not, there is no problem from most people about gun ownership. An American right after all to a point. What that point is yet to be clearly defined.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:35 am

WarRI1 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
salttee wrote:
I don't think that gun laws that allow the populace to own military weapons are "common sense gun laws".
There is no reason for a civilian to own an automatic feeding rifle, or a rifle which holds more than four rounds (one in the chamber and three in the magazine.) It's senseless to allow what is going on now.


The common sense gun laws, are a total repeal of the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA, in my opinion. Its senseless in whose opinion? Yours? Because being able to own rifles, that the military uses (which is already illegal), is sensible to me. Shall not be infringed is clear to me, if its not to you, maybe its time to start a constitutional amendment process...

I own numerous guns, many many dozens. If you want to take them, come take them, but you're going to need guns to do it...



Do you have weapons that are of the type that most people want controlled? If not, there is no problem from most people about gun ownership. An American right after all to a point. What that point is yet to be clearly defined.


Most people don't want any gun control? Which kind? I have half a dozen or more AK pattern and AR15 pattern rifles. They're no more deadly than any other rifle I own.
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13246
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:44 am

A broad statement that most do not want gun control. I think a ton want assault weapons being controlled. Any weapon that fires a bullet is no more dangerous than assault weapons, until you pull the trigger and have bump stocks along with huge clips. Never mind steel jacketed ammunition which complicates things. This type of ammo is readily available. I support gun ownership by the way. I always have.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:58 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
Shall not be infringed is clear to me, if its not to you, maybe its time to start a constitutional amendment process...

Well regulated militia is also clear to me.

DiamondFlyer wrote:
I have half a dozen or more AK pattern and AR15 pattern rifles. They're no more deadly than any other rifle I own.

Yes they are, that's why you own them.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:03 am

salttee wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
Shall not be infringed is clear to me, if its not to you, maybe its time to start a constitutional amendment process...

Well regulated militia is also clear to me.

DiamondFlyer wrote:
I have half a dozen or more AK pattern and AR15 pattern rifles. They're no more deadly than any other rifle I own.

Yes they are, that's why you own them.


Well regulated, meaning well trained. I try to train and get time in with something in my collection as often as I can. An AR-15 is no more deadly than a Mini-14. But you don't believe it, because you believe the crap that the fake news types put out. You think AR-15 or AK automatically means fully auto, which cannot be further from the truth.
From my cold, dead hands
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:13 am

They both shoot the .223 round, so yes you're correct they are equally deadly. The AR15 is easier to make full auto and does hold a bigger clip though. And it looks sooo knarly to an adolecent's brain.

BTW
I've owned a mini 14. When I was in the Army my personal issue weapon was a M1 carbine which I always thought of as a POS because of the wimpy round it shot. The first time I saw a mini 14 go off I had to have one. I fired a few clips through it and in the end it was just collecting dust so I got rid of it. It was too much firepower for anything except killing humans.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:34 am

salttee wrote:
They both shoot the .223 round, so yes you're correct they are equally deadly. The AR15 is easier to make full auto and does hold a bigger clip though. And it looks sooo knarly to an adolecent's brain.

BTW
I've owned a mini 14. When I was in the Army my personal issue weapon was a M1 carbine which I always thought of as a POS because of the wimpy round it shot. The first time I saw a mini 14 go off I had to have one. I fired a few clips through it and in the end it was just collecting dust so I got rid of it. It was too much firepower for anything except killing humans.


Neither one of them use a clip. And making either one full auto (which they both can be made as such) is already a crime. A 223 is a weak round, hardly too much firepower. Most place don't consider it for any game larger than a coyote.
From my cold, dead hands
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:48 am

You don't know what you're talking about, just as I suspected when you started babbling about "your 70 gun safe".

You're not even a gun nut, just an internet troll.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:55 am

salttee wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about, just as I suspected when you started babbling about "your 70 gun safe".

You're not even a gun nut, just an internet troll.


Don't know what I'm talking about? A clip is a small device which is used to push ammo into an internal magazine of a gun. A magazine is a removable feeding device to feed ammunition in the gun. You're the troll, not knowing what your talking about.

https://writingexplained.org/clip-vs-ma ... difference
From my cold, dead hands
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:05 am

It's like your use of the term "pattern rifles"; all you know about guns came from a book.

Or online these days.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:29 am

salttee wrote:
It's like your use of the term "pattern rifles"; all you know about guns came from a book.

Or online these days.


You want to bet on that? The value of my firearms collection is worth more than most people's car. You just got backed into a corner and don't know how to get out of it. The fact of the matter is, I own a number of AK pattern rifles, from different countries of origin, in many different calibers. I own or have owned AR15s in 4 different calibers at one time.
From my cold, dead hands
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:34 am

The only thing I would have to say to you the mods wouldn't approve of.

So I bid you adieu.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9492
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:11 am

330west wrote:
Whatever you say Mr. Poverty-isn't-a-thing.

viewtopic.php?t=1363807

Yup, I'd had a bit to drink that night.

salttee wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Ultimately sometime in the future a new amendment will need to resolve the problem.

I don't think so. The Constitution was pretty clear when it said "well regulated militia". We just need Supreme Court justices with the reading skill to understand those words.

Agreed. And using Vegas as an example, it was the militia, the "well regulated militia" aka police, that took care of the problem. The militia concept solves so many problems involved with the current gun issues. Militia's are private, not the government, they demand skill and proper handling of a weapon, they self regulate and would ensure/improve accountability. These things are sorely lacking right now. Freedom to own a gun is not a bad thing, it can very much be a good thing but responsibility and accountability are just as important if not more so. Gun ownership and use should not just be "free" it should come with a price, a price of practice and proof and partnership, even teamwork. That is if you are going to actually defend those that you love.

DiamondFlyer wrote:
I own numerous guns, many many dozens. If you want to take them, come take them, but you're going to need guns to do it...

I'm good with you owning guns, even multiple guns. I bet you even use them regularly and practice or hunt with them. But I also am positive that if things changed and you had to give them up or had to do something to demonstrate accountability, that you would do one or the other. Peacefully. And if you decided not to, I can guarantee you that a "well trained militia" or the equivalent would be able to relieve you of them more than you would be able to prevent them. Of course that is your fear, that you would have to do something you do not agree with even if the constitution says differently (and the courts have interpreted it so).

Anyway, no worries. You have your guns, enjoy them! Please use them responsibly is all I ask (and from what you say, you do. Which makes me curious why you don't think others should also do so but that is just me.)

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:43 am

Tugger wrote:
Agreed. And using Vegas as an example, it was the militia, the "well regulated militia" aka police, that took care of the problem.

No, the police are not a "militia".

Tugger wrote:
The militia concept solves so many problems involved with the current gun issues. Militia's are private, not the government, they demand skill and proper handling of a weapon, they self regulate and would ensure/improve accountability. These things are sorely lacking right now. Freedom to own a gun is not a bad thing, it can very much be a good thing but responsibility and accountability are just as important if not more so. Gun ownership and use should not just be "free" it should come with a price, a price of practice and proof and partnership, even teamwork. That is if you are going to actually defend those that you love.


You're getting into esoteric arguments with that paragraph, I can't see where there's ever a case where a militia can be called private. Here's a typical dictionary definition:
MILITIA noun:
1 a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2 a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
3 all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Origin: late 16th century: from Latin, literally ‘military service'


Even if you use a definition some use: 'people regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government'. These people will see themselves as representing "the people" and as such will not be "private".

And I see no need to get into judgemental issues as to whether guns are good or bad or that owning one comes with any price (other than to secure it). That diffuses any discussion about "the right to own guns" which plays into the hands of those who would wish to move the discussion towards a hysterical bent.

And keep in mind that you are replying to a guy who thinks a type of cartridge that a whole slew of militarys have chosen to defend their nations after careful evaluation of things like armor penetration and available kinetic energy beyond 500 yards, is unsuitable for hunting animals larger than a coyote.

(223 is a weak round, hardly too much firepower. Most place don't consider it for any game larger than a coyote.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9492
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:07 am

salttee wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Agreed. And using Vegas as an example, it was the militia, the "well regulated militia" aka police, that took care of the problem.

No, the police are not a "militia".

I am stretching it yes, to make a point. An organized group, such as a militia, is vastly more effective than an "an armed citizen". The argument that the unencumbered right to bear arms is necessary for a free society, that owning a gun gives one power and protection from threats, is not valid. Being armed in conjunction with coordination and being supported by others can protect one and ones family, not a gun alone.

As to definitions, you state others here are selectively using definitions from a book. I am not saying you are wrong in what you are saying but you are parsing things and forcing a narrow definition where it is not needed. To whit:
From Wikipedia (yes I know it is not an optimum nor definitive reference source but the information is sound)....

A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai). Generally unable to hold ground against regular forces, it is common for militias to be used for aiding regular troops by skirmishing, holding fortifications, or irregular warfare, instead of being used in offensive campaigns by themselves. Militia are often limited by local civilian laws to serve only in their home region, and to be serve only for a limited time; this further reduces their use in long military campaigns.

With the emergence of professional forces (in the form of mercenaries whose livelihood was military service) during the Renaissance, Western European militias wilted; later however, they would be revived as part of Florentine civic humanism, which held that professional militaries were a result of corruption, and admired the Roman model.[2] The civic humanist ideal of the militia was spread through Europe by the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli (According to Hörnqvist, The Prince, ch. 12 and 13, Discourses on Livy, and The Art of War.)

Beginning in the late 20th century, some militias (in particular officially recognized and sanctioned militias of a government) act as professional forces, while still being "part-time" or "on-call" organizations. For instance, the members of some U.S. Army National Guard units are considered professional soldiers, as they are trained to maintain the same standards as their "full-time" (active duty) counterparts.

Militias thus can be military or paramilitary, depending on the instance. Some of the contexts in which the term "militia" is used include:

- Forces engaged in defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
- The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
* A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
* A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
- A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
- An irregular armed force enabling its leader to exercise military, economic, and political control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state (See: Warlord).
- An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries, such as the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
- The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia and other former CIS countries, where they are known as militsiya.
- In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.
- A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

The police can in some ways be considered a form or of a local community militia. It is not an exact fit but the idea is that they are a trained, effective group that through teamwork can take on a much larger but dispersed and unorganized "enemy". Sometimes they coordinate and team with another local force such as a guard unit to do more but the point is they are all well regulated and because of that they are terrifically effective. And they do so everyday everywhere around the world.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:04 pm

I don't understand what point you are making. I hope it is not that a militia can be private, because if that is so then all the nutcases have to do is print some ID cards to say they are a militia. The way I see it is that a militia is a reserve force sanctioned by the state, or at least by the 'people'. The Wikipedia article points out that militia is used in conjunction with warlord armies; that seems to me to be a separate definition and not applicable to anything in the US.

Police are professional, they are compensated by the state and they wear uniforms with emblems of the state, militias are by definition civilian in nature, also they are considered 'reserve' whereas police are always 'called up'. I don't see how police can be considered militia.

btw
When I say others here are using definitions from a book, I am saying that they are using inappropriately formal or technical wordage in everyday conversation ie: "pattern gun" is an extremely obscure term and it's usage leads me to think that the author isn't really familiar with the subject at hand. In the case above, there are also a couple of other tipoffs that the poster isn't really familiar with a subject he speaks about; (even tries to be intimidating), I pointed one of them out to you above.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:09 pm

salttee wrote:
I don't understand what point you are making. I hope it is not that a militia can be private, because if that is so then all the nutcases have to do is print some ID cards to say they are a militia. The way I see it is that a militia is a reserve force sanctioned by the state, or at least by the 'people'. The Wikipedia article points out that militia is used in conjunction with warlord armies; that seems to me to be a separate definition and not applicable to anything in the US.

Police are professional, they are compensated by the state and they wear uniforms with emblems of the state, militias are by definition civilian in nature, also they are considered 'reserve' whereas police are always 'called up'. I don't see how police can be considered militia.

btw
When I say others here are using definitions from a book, I am saying that they are using inappropriately formal or technical wordage in everyday conversation ie: "pattern gun" is an extremely obscure term and it's usage leads me to think that the author isn't really familiar with the subject at hand. In the case above, there are also a couple of other tipoffs that the poster isn't really familiar with a subject he speaks about; (even tries to be intimidating), I pointed one of them out to you above.


You can't even admit you're wrong, and you're trying to tell me I'm a fake? Piss off. You tried to claim an AR15 uses a clip. It does not, has not, and will never use a clip. Nor does a mini-14. For someone claiming to have military training, you must have been a cook or some non-military type military position. You want to ban guns, know what you're talking about. Educate yourself, don't puppet what Bloomberg, Shannon Watts, and Pelosi spew.

A militia by the people, is exactly one of the things the 2A was created for. If the government decides to not follow the constitution, there will be a militia (many of them probably), founded to prevent that from happening. One I would fully expect any legitimate military officer to join, as they swore an oath to uphold the US constitution.

You want to change the 2A, that's fine. You legally change it and start confiscation, I'd begrudgingly comply. You start confiscation tomorrow with no change to the constitution, you better come ready for a fight.
From my cold, dead hands
 
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:51 pm

salttee wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington


Your point? 223/556 is a poor hunting choice for anything larger than medium game.
From my cold, dead hands
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:36 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
Your point? 223/556 is a poor hunting choice for anything larger than medium game.

Medium game are deer elk and the like, but you said coyote, which is small game.

The 223 round is a poor choice for hunting anything other than humans. It is shoots a lightweight bullet with exceedingly high velocity which makes it a dangerous choice for hunting. Even if you were one of the gun nuts who try to defend the 223 for hunting, if you knew anything about guns you would be aware of the subject and not make a nonsensical statement that the 223 is unsuitable for anything larger than a coyote. To go into detail that might be a bit too much for some in this forum, let me explain that for military purposes it is better to leave the enemy soldier severely wounded than to kill outright as it takes up manpower tending to the wounded. Hunters want a clean kill, so they choose a heavier bullet at lower velocity. At least the ones who know what they are doing.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8952
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:47 pm

There is nothing that says, that you must own a gun to hunt animals. The constitution makes it quite clear that the guns are to be used to defend the country and the constitution from any threat.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:06 pm

salttee wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
Your point? 223/556 is a poor hunting choice for anything larger than medium game.

Medium game are deer elk and the like, but you said coyote, which is small game.

The 223 round is a poor choice for hunting anything other than humans. It is shoots a lightweight bullet with exceedingly high velocity which makes it a dangerous choice for hunting. Even if you were one of the gun nuts who try to defend the 223 for hunting, if you knew anything about guns you would be aware of the subject and not make a nonsensical statement that the 223 is unsuitable for anything larger than a coyote. To go into detail that might be a bit too much for some in this forum, let me explain that for military purposes it is better to leave the enemy soldier severely wounded than to kill outright as it takes up manpower tending to the wounded. Hunters want a clean kill, so they choose a heavier bullet at lower velocity. At least the ones who know what they are doing.


You sir, are a moron. I wouldn't hunt deer with it. I'd certainly use to to exterminate coyotes and hogs, if I wanted to. But you keep throwing out me not knowing anything, and you could not be further from the truth. When in fact, you are the one who started with lies...
From my cold, dead hands
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:27 pm

You want to take them? Come and take them bro...
From my cold, dead hands
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:27 pm

Your condescending "You sir, are a moron." attitude has been on display every time you post, even from back before this thread when you claimed to own a 70 gun safe. Yet when you talk about the subject you display ignorance. You beg for pushback.

You don't know anything about 223 ammo yet you claim to own a dozen of them.
DiamondFlyer wrote:
I have half a dozen or more AK pattern and AR15 pattern rifles.

DiamondFlyer wrote:
A 223 is a weak round, hardly too much firepower. Most place don't consider it for any game larger than a coyote.

Then you display a lack of knowledge of gun terminology:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
A clip is a small device which is used to push ammo into an internal magazine of a gun. A magazine is a removable feeding device to feed ammunition in the gun. You're the troll, not knowing what your talking about.
DiamondFlyer wrote:
You can't even admit you're wrong, and you're trying to tell me I'm a fake? Piss off. You tried to claim an AR15 uses a clip. It does not, has not, and will never use a clip. Nor does a mini-14. For someone claiming to have military training, you must have been a cook or some non-military type military position. You want to ban guns, know what you're talking about. Educate yourself, don't puppet what Bloomberg, Shannon Watts, and Pelosi spew.

The two words are interchangeable, if you were what you say you are you would know that.
https://recordsetter.com/world-record/e ... -xdm/17831
https://soundcloud.com/dsavage3900/30-round-clip
http://www.armslist.com/posts/852213/kn ... ak-47-clip
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Baretta-40-Cal ... Swwe9ZnbOq

And you post crap like this:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
I own numerous guns, many many dozens. If you want to take them, come take them, but you're going to need guns to do it...


Internet tough guy
Internet loudmouth

BTW
I'm not arguing with you, I know better that to argue with a person who declares himself a nutcase from the start. I'm presenting the information so that anyone who doesn't dwell on guns can also see that you're spewing gibberish.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:31 pm

seahawk wrote:
There is nothing that says, that you must own a gun to hunt animals. The constitution makes it quite clear that the guns are to be used to defend the country and the constitution from any threat.
Which is an absurd premise anytime after the indian wars were won and the gatling gun was invented. This subject was covered above.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:55 am

salttee wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There is nothing that says, that you must own a gun to hunt animals. The constitution makes it quite clear that the guns are to be used to defend the country and the constitution from any threat.
Which is an absurd premise anytime after the indian wars were won and the gatling gun was invented. This subject was covered above.


So change the constitution. But be prepared for an absolute circus when you try to go the only route that has a change, constitutional convention.
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
notaxonrotax
Posts: 1299
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:29 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:06 am

For anybody that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21060
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:54 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
You want to take them? Come and take them bro...


You are probably one who should have them limited.

Of course, you read that as "take" and not "limited" but whatever.

That is the problem with ammosexuals: They read any gun regulation as "taking away" when it is anything but. And they also call them selves "right to live" crowd.

If gunning down 20 children will not make you do anything, you no longer have any right to call yourself a "right to life" supporter.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:16 am

seb146 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
You want to take them? Come and take them bro...


You are probably one who should have them limited.

Of course, you read that as "take" and not "limited" but whatever.

That is the problem with ammosexuals: They read any gun regulation as "taking away" when it is anything but. And they also call them selves "right to live" crowd.

If gunning down 20 children will not make you do anything, you no longer have any right to call yourself a "right to life" supporter.


And now you're stereotyping. I find the religious right, anti-abortionist, just as reprehensible as you and your anti-gun cucks.
From my cold, dead hands
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12405
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:35 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
You want to take them? Come and take them bro...


With statements like this you’re clearly part of the problem.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21060
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:12 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
You want to take them? Come and take them bro...


You are probably one who should have them limited.

Of course, you read that as "take" and not "limited" but whatever.

That is the problem with ammosexuals: They read any gun regulation as "taking away" when it is anything but. And they also call them selves "right to live" crowd.

If gunning down 20 children will not make you do anything, you no longer have any right to call yourself a "right to life" supporter.


And now you're stereotyping. I find the religious right, anti-abortionist, just as reprehensible as you and your anti-gun cucks.


Yet you vote with them and defend them and insist they are "patriots."

I want legal gun ownership and want people to worship as they please and live how they want. And I am told by you people that I am not worthy. hmmmmmm......
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8952
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:32 am

salttee wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There is nothing that says, that you must own a gun to hunt animals. The constitution makes it quite clear that the guns are to be used to defend the country and the constitution from any threat.
Which is an absurd premise anytime after the indian wars were won and the gatling gun was invented. This subject was covered above.


But it is a fact, the constitution clearly puts emphasis of owning a gun to fight humans, or was a militia every called up to fight elks? Limiting the ownership of hunting guns is probably easier based on the constitution, than limiting assault rifles, machine guns or pistols.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:09 am

The militias were called up to kill Indians. I don't think that your legal theory that "Limiting the ownership of hunting guns is probably easier based on the constitution, than limiting assault rifles, machine guns or pistols" would get anywhere if argued in court, it is a clever rhetorical device but it would go nowhere in court as it doesn't address the issues currently before society.

The second amendment:
"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."

I see a contradiction there, "well regulated" means well regulated. and if something is to be well regulated, somebodies idea of what their rights are are certain to be infringed. But it does tie the right to keep arms to a militia. So far that tie has been ignored but I am sure that it will not continue to be ignored forever. The kind of militia that existed in the frontier society no longer exists today. Today the biggest threat comes from "guns"; there are no more Indian tribes or British soldiers to worry about.

The current Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment is anachronistic.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8952
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:47 pm

But in "District of Columbia vs. Heller" the court made it clear that the second amendment does not translate into a right to hunt. The ruling clearly says that all lawful use is protected by the constitution. But hunting without a hunting license is not lawful, so you can easily limit the sale of hunting guns to licensed hunters without being in conflict with that ruling.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9492
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:56 pm

seahawk wrote:
But in "District of Columbia vs. Heller" the court made it clear that the second amendment does not translate into a right to hunt. The ruling clearly says that all lawful use is protected by the constitution. But hunting without a hunting license is not lawful, so you can easily limit the sale of hunting guns to licensed hunters without being in conflict with that ruling.

You are confusing the right to own, "to bear arms" with the right of using that item. Firearms have many restrictions in many states on their use. The problem of course is that once you have a gun you can use it unlawfully at anytime.

And as many gun owners complain there are a lot of people in their ranks that break those laws all the time that they can do nothing about it. (Well, they could but but the right to bear arms is sacrosanct and all encompassing, it is a natural right from "nature's god", it cannot be infringed and therefore gun owners cannot allow it.)

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8952
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:33 pm

Imho the court clearly says: "... the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" They then say that the ownership for the lawful purpose of self-defense shall not be limited when it comes to handguns. So they clearly connect the right to own a type of weapon with the lawful use of that type of weapon. If you follow that argument you can easily say that hunting rifles should only be owned by hunters, as the intended usage of such weapons is only lawful if you have a hunting license.

Add this quote from wikipedia:

Some hunters have challenged hunting licenses, as being in violation of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; the Supreme Court of the US in February 2008, heard arguments on the proper standard of review for gun laws or regulations.[41] However, in District of Columbia v. Heller,[42] the Court declined to examine the broader issues, leaving state hunting licenses valid and in force.
The current law is unclear at to what standard of review would apply, but the rational basis or arbitrary and capricious tests are the most likely standards. Under either standard, most hunting license regimes in the United States would likely pass muster, due to the need to conserve natural resources, to enforce the police power, and to raise revenue, all valid purposes of such laws.

So imho the current US law would it make it easier to ban or limit the ownership of weapons primarily intended for killing animals, than weapons primarily intended for killing humans (aka self-defence)
 
PhilBy
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:44 am

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:19 pm

The tex is clear-anyone who signs on a as member of the local militia and spends 2 hours every friday evening drilling should have a right to bear arms!
 
windy95
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: USA Gun Laws - My Opinion, what's yours?

Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:33 pm

"Well regulated" had a different meaning back then as well as to what the "Militia" was.

The founders knew that the Militia was the people themselves not a military or paramilitary government controlled group

•I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. - George Mason

•The militia are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. - Richard Henry Lee

•The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson

•Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of arms. - Thomas Paine

•The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of every other nation. - James Madison

•Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. - Thomas Jefferson

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789)

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them…” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.


As well the law itself is clear. 10 U.S. Code § 311(a) reads: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."


As for well regulated Everything before the comma is an explanation for everything after the comma: "A well regulated militia" is not a legal requirement on its own, but the justification for ensuring that the people are armed. This is simple grammar, and frankly, if the issue weren't so politicized, obvious.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dmg626, Dutchy, NIKV69 and 19 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos