Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Setting aside the fact that this has been debunked repeatedly by other historical documents and the simple fact that not only are there no historical accounts of the federal government enforcing the premise that only the military should have arms by confiscation of arms from civilians.....indeed civilians owned artillery and battleships.....
What is the point of trying to make the "well regulated militia" argument.......if, as Liberals claim over and over....."nobody wants to take your guns"?
If, after all, you think the 2nd amendment only applies to the military, wouldn't that interpretation require confiscation of arms from civilians?
What historical documents? Post them here so we call all read them.
My point is simply that people wrongly invoke what the founding fathers had in mind as if they were infallible, able to see into the future, and/or as if their thinking then about their issues of their day is just as relevant to our circumstances and issues today. Ridiculous that...
I made no pitch to change the Constitution, only to point out the need to focus on what is relevant today, not in terms of the reality our founding fathers were experiencing over 200 years ago.
Do I agree the procedure established by our Constitution should be followed in order to change the Constitution? Should I dignify that question without you making clear why you would ask such a question?
I think not, but the answer nevertheless is of course I agree.
Baffling...
I was just looking for some clarification...... I only speak for myself but I don't believe I have invoked anything incorrectly. I understand that you question the relevance of what the founders wrote to where we are as a society today. No one is infallible. But I do believe that their are many people who would circumvent the Constitution.... I am glad to see that although we don't see exactly eye to eye on the 2nd, we do see eye to eye on what it takes to change it. Cheers.
The first clue with paddock was his girlfriend stating his mental health had been in decline since election time, and that he suffered night terrors. Not nightmares... night terrors. Screaming in his sleep...
Just like the airforce dropped the ball on reporting this last scumbag, she dropped the ball on reporting his behaviors...
Worried about crowded over populated prisons. Make it a death penalty to Comission the use of a firearm in criminal enterprise. Make it law that defense attorney can not persuade a judge or jury via emotion. Oh they had a rough childhood. They had mommy/daddy issues, they were bullied as a child, stop the nonsense and feeble excuses to get sentences reduced. Stop prosecuting those who act in defense of property life and liberty and trying to portray them as the bad guy, evil, mentally deranged, having a blood lust.
Nobody I know who carries hopes or prays for a red dawn situation or a scenario where there is a firefight or lone gunman spraying rounds in their community. They're confused for having a blood lust for being prepared for the situation and equated to the scumbags who commit these atrocities.
Right you are about how the ball can be dropped. What to do about people dropping balls is the question...
I hate to think how many vets might be considered a possible threat due to their PDSD symptoms/issues. Go too far with those fears and suspicions, and we begin to encroach on the privacy of those who may be troubled but not that troubled. Hell, I've wondered many times how that crazy guy screaming obscenities on a busy street can go on without the police getting involved, but if the police dealt with every guy screaming obscenities they'd have to stop doing more important police work...
No doubt more serious penalties might work with some, but with so many people for whom a case of leniency can be made, it's just not that simple (and why we have the space for judgement that we do in our legal system).
Can argue all day long about such things, but ultimately I only have so much time to waste and need to sign off now. Unfortunately, although I am all for whatever makes good sense to prevent or reduce any causes of death and injury, I can't help but think we're screwed when it comes to what the next crazy terrorist may do, and the one after that...
Still, as I posted somewhere along the way yesterday, getting killed by a terrorist is about as likely as getting crushed by furniture, so I try to live my life free of those fears, because LITS.
Oh man, you hit a nerve. The "The Public Safety", and "Public Good" have been used by government to over step its bounds for centuries. From Eminent Domain, to over zealous environmental regs, gun control, etc.
Oh brother, not again...
"This one-two punch of policy deregulation and bureaucratic delegitimization is a combination that erstwhile White House strategist Steve Bannon gleefully calls the “deconstruction of the administrative state”. Already this deconstruction is turning back the clock, sometimes years, sometimes decades, on the kinds of protections and assurances that enable Americans to be confident and productive participants in the national political economy."
I was just looking for some clarification...... I only speak for myself but I don't believe I have invoked anything incorrectly. I understand that you question the relevance of what the founders wrote to where we are as a society today. No one is infallible. But I do believe that their are many people who would circumvent the Constitution.... I am glad to see that although we don't see exactly eye to eye on the 2nd, we do see eye to eye on what it takes to change it. Cheers.
Cheers as I am signing off now, but can you please be specific as to where or how we don't "see eye to eye?"
Please quote me verbatim if you are still unclear as to my words or meaning. If you do, I think you will see how you are invoking some assertions incorrectly at a minimum, for reasons not clear to me...
My point is simply that people wrongly invoke what the founding fathers had in mind as if they were infallible, able to see into the future, and/or as if their thinking then about their issues of their day is just as relevant to our circumstances and issues today. Ridiculous that...
I made no pitch to change the Constitution, only to point out the need to focus on what is relevant today, not in terms of the reality our founding fathers were experiencing over 200 years ago.
Do I agree the procedure established by our Constitution should be followed in order to change the Constitution? Should I dignify that question without you making clear why you would ask such a question?
I think not, but the answer nevertheless is of course I agree.
Baffling...
What the founding fathers had in mind for this country was a country where individual civil liberties takes precedence over everything. Freedom from tyranny by a majority. They established a form of government designed to be free from tyranny. That's why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that are the law of the land, that all public officials put their hands on a bible and are sworn to uphold "so help them God". It really is that simple, and is a concept along with principles that are just as relevant today as they were back then. That's why they fought and won their independence from Great Britain.
The technology may have changed but our founding principles haven't nor should they ever change. Those principles are who we are as a nation. Principles that are unique to the rest of the world. There's no need to change they are what kept us free.
What the founding fathers had in mind for this country was a country where individual civil liberties takes precedence over everything. Freedom from tyranny by a majority. They established a form of government designed to be free from tyranny. That's why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that are the law of the land, that all public officials put their hands on a bible and are sworn to uphold "so help them God". It really is that simple, and is a concept along with principles that are just as relevant today as they were back then. That's why they fought and won their independence from Great Britain.
The technology may have changed but our founding principles haven't nor should they ever change. Those principles are who we are as a nation. Principles that are unique to the rest of the world. There's no need to change they are what kept us free.
One more before I sign off today...
Again you make a case that apparently is your argument not mine. I also agree or well understand much our founding fathers had in mind and what an incredible job they did to further those rather progressive ideas.
That said, we also all well know that there is no absolute protection of our individual civil liberties, because we live in a modern day society that essentially makes absolute protection of our individual freedoms impossible. In other words, we don't get to do whatever we want to do.
I like to think no one needs further explanation about that truth, especially now as I have no more time to waste, but if so, please do let be known what's hard to understand about any of this...
Right you are about how the ball can be dropped. What to do about people dropping balls is the question. I hate to think how many vets might be considered a possible threat due to their PDSD symptoms/issues. Go to far with that, and we begin to encroach on the privacy of those who may be troubled but not that troubled. Hell, I've wondered many times how that crazy guy screaming obscenities on a busy street can go on without the police getting involved, but if they dealt with every guy screaming obscenities they'd have to stop doing more important police work...
No doubt more serious penalties might work with some, but with so many people for whom a case of leniency can be made, it's just not that simple (and why we have the space for judgement that we do in our court system).
Can argue all day long about such things, but ultimately I only have so much time to waste and need to sign off now. Unfortunately, although I am all for whatever makes good sense to prevent or reduce any causes of death and injury, I can't help but think we're screwed when it comes to what the next crazy terrorist may do, and the one after that...
Still, as I posted somewhere along the way yesterday, getting killed by a terrorist is about as likely as getting crushed by furniture, so I try to live my life free of those fears, because LITS.
"Life is too short."
Thing about we humans is that all of us, every single one, have thoughts and emotions inside that scare even ourselves. I know do. Most of us have developed the strength to keep those demons on a leash. We keep the dark side of ourselves under control and we recognize that side for what it is. It seems to me however that more and more there is active encouragement from sources that reach to let that dark nature out.
Anti heroes have become role models. Good is being portrayed as weak and ineffective. One must "take care of business" using the darkness. Personally, that thought scares me. But many people revel in the concept and those feelings are being reinforced. Music, movies, television even what passes as "art" portrays the negative side of humanity in a positive light.
I'm not saying that restraints on free expression be implemented. Before someone starts screaming at me about fettering peoples thoughts and ability to express themselves. Restraint on the 1A get the same people who want the 2A abolished all in a wad. However, much of this "free expression" and graphic, uncut imagery is a contributing factor in violent acting out. We have bred and conditioned a generation ( closer to two) that is totally numb to what was considered unsuitable for display when my generation was coming up. And we didn't see these mass shootings and other heinous acts n such profusion. Not even close.
But we weren't encouraged to allow our dark sides out to play. I know my dark side doesn't play nice at all, or t wouldn't if I let it out, which I don't. Makes me wonder....
Nope, that was the M16A2, which was discontinued, an M4 and M16A1 are select fire, meaning it can be set to semi-auto or auto. Now, as a military firearms instructor we taught the troops to try and limit their full auto fire to 3 round bursts due to muzzle rise, but they can go through an entire mag is they so choice to.
I was issued the A2 with the forward assist and the 3 round burst option on the selector. I didn't realize they went back to full auto, my apologies. I can see muzzle rise becoming an issue, especially for anything other than a prone supported firing position.
I think the AR platform is popular because that's what veterans and LE are comfortable with and trained on.
Cheers as I am signing off now, but can you please be specific as to where or how we don't "see eye to eye?"
Please quote me verbatim if you are still unclear as to my words or meaning. If you do, I think you will see how you are invoking some assertions incorrectly at a minimum, for reasons not clear to me...
When I say "invoked" I mean as far as the founders. I am quite sure of their intents and meanings. I didn't mean anything you said / posted. As far as not seeing eye to eye on the 2nd I am a pretty stalwart "shall not be infringed" person. I had gotten the feeling (perhaps incorrectly) that you have a somewhat more lenient view on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Makes me wonder....