slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

For your viewing pleasure, I added an old video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHmunZxJeM

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

Absolutely!... It's not just for show or intimidation tactic, its there for what it needs to be there for..
Also, Not a violence first kinda gal, again, unless someone tries to hurt me or mine!...

Tug484

I have my certificate, but I haven't applied for a license yet.
I need more training. I haven't shot in a long time .
I'm not sure my certificate will work here because it's from another state.

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

Depending on the state, They may take into consideration that you've at least had some prior training and ceritication.. At least I would hope so...Yea I haven't shot in Years either.. I was kinda taught the cowboy way.. and my .357's are colt replica's called dakota.. but basically, as an extention of my arm..muscle memory probably comes into play I would think also, "like riding a bike"

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

It is better to have a gun and not need it than to not have one if you ever do.

Tug484

I used to have a 357 and boy did that thing give you powder burns .

Tug484

Well, I actually have an H & R 8 shooter, but the hammer is slightly off to the left and I need it fixed .
I had a 22, but I am not strong enough to pull it back to load the bullet in the chamber .
I've heard to take the magazine out and just set and practice but I didn't .
That was before Obama came up with his don't give them away law. I gave it to my cop son.
I thought that was crazy. My dad inherited a Mossberg from my grandfather and my brother inherited it from my dad.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

——————-
Navigator,

I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. You’ve listened to the NRA’s bass-akwards retention for so long, you come to believe them. They’re totally LYING about it. Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment, all the way through, pausing where the commas are, so to understand the inflections and emphasis of the phrases? Also, you need a good understanding of how English was spoken and written in the mid 1700’s. From my experiences on the OPP, most of you 2nd Amendment adherents don’t take that part of history into account. Some of the English spoken today is different from some of the English of the 1700’s. And, the spoken English to the 1700’s is different than the English of Shakespeare’s time. Just look at how we’ve dropped “thee’s and thou’s,” and no longer use “f” for an “s.”

It goes to prove that words, their meanings, sentence structure, punctuation, and inflections, change over time as language changes to keep-up with the changing society. As an example, only 100 years ago, the word “gay” meant that someone was “happy,” not homosexual, or more specifically, a homosexual male (as opposed to a homosexual female who’s called a “lesbian”).

Take a couple of more changes. 1) In the course of just a decade (10 years), the word “can” changed meanings. In the slang of the 1940s, "can" referred to a jail or prison. In the slang of the 1950s, the meaning shifted to mean a toilet or bathroom.

2) Say you lived from the 1700’s and into the late 1800’s. While out hunting with your long gun (shotgun, rifle or musket) and you were asked as to the location of your “tampon,” what would be your first thought? Would you, immediately know your tampon was the short, wooden plug you put down the barrel of your long gun to keep any rain out? Or, would you immediately think of a feminine hygiene product?

So, as to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, unless you’re very familiar with the way English was spoken and written, around the time the Constitution was written, your understanding of its words and meanings could be fairly different than what Mr. Madison wrote and what the meanings of his words and sentences. The NRA recognizes that most people don’t realize there are differences in the language. So, they read the 2nd Amendment and try to convince people the 2nd Amendment’s wording reflects words used today. It doesn’t.

When was the last time you diagrammed a sentence in English class? I have 2 granddaughters who live nearby. One attends junior high school and the other is a sophomore in high school. School started here, August 1. When I last spoke to them about their classes, I included inquiring about their English class. Both said that English was their most boring class. When I asked them if they had ever been taught how to diagrams sentences, both said, “What’s diagraming sentences?” When I was in grade school, we were taught sentence diagramming in the 7th, 9th and 11th grades. Of course, that was in the mid to late 60’s. Times have changed and schools no longer put as much emphasis on sentence structure, let alone the sentence structure of older English composition.

Like I said, the NRA is betting on yours and many other’s ignorance of the differences between English composition of the 1700’s and now. The interpretation you used as a rebuttal of my post proves my point. If you were to read the 2nd Amendment as it was written and meant to be understood, you'd see your mistakes in understanding.

Another comment you posted referenced our “...benevolent government not lasting... .” Why would you think such? What proof do you have that indicates our government will turn against us? Unless it’s Trump’s divisive and hateful rhetoric you’re referencing, I see no eminent indications of that. As have many others, I have noticed an uptick in the number of “hate crimes” committed since his inauguration. His own FBI has published the figures that prove that.

It seems to me you’ve been listening to way too much “hate radio” and Faux News on your TV. You should get away from Brietbart, Infowars and Rush Limbaugh, too. From these “outlets” I’ve just mentioned is where Trump gets most of the lies he spreads. Are you aware that Trump has topped the 12 THOUSAND mark in the number of lies he’s told since taking office? That’s a récord only a moronic narcissist would be proud of.

Seeems to me, if you’re so afraid of our government becoming a totalitarian government, you should help get Trump out of office. You should help clean the Congress of the GOPTPers who support Trump and his “bought and paid for” agenda that favors the ricjph and powerful. You need to help get “Citizens United” overturned and eliminate all of the “dark money” being spent by the super-PACs and foreign money; like the money the NRA accepted from Russia and then give to NRA-supporting and Trump-supporting candidates. If we lose our “benevolent” government, it’ll be because it was sold out from underneath us by the rich and powerful; be they domestic or foreign.

TAG, Navigator! You’re it!

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

————-

Thanks, Slatten! I always appreciate your comments.

After I posted it, I found way too many gramatical errors. I guess I need to slow down when I proof-read what I write. 😬🤪

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Is this supposed to be some kind of an argument? You did a lengthy job of telling us you disagree with our "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, you assumed that our take on it comes from the NRA, Brietbart, Infowars and Rush Limbaugh, you assumed that we no nothing about the history of languages, the structure and changes in languages over time, you assumed that we are ignorant of the cultural and social influences that have affected the English language over time.

Your response is loaded with prejudice and bigotry, you criticize and condemn us for being stupid, but you do not offer your "interpretation" of Madison's meaning when he penned the 2nd Amendment.

It's real simple. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, is the prefatory clause of the 2nd A, it states the purpose of the operative clause which is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Tug484

[quote=Blade_Runner]Is this supposed to be some kind of an argument? You did a lengthy job of telling us you disagree with our "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, you assumed that our take on it comes from the NRA, Brietbart, Infowars and Rush Limbaugh, you assumed that we no nothing about the history of languages, the structure and changes in languages over time, you assumed that we are ignorant of the cultural and social influences that have affected the English language over time.

Your response is loaded with prejudice and bigotry, you criticize and condemn us for being stupid, but you do not offer your "interpretation" of Madison's meaning when he penned the 2nd Amendment.

It's real simple. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, is the prefatory clause of the 2nd A, it states the purpose of the operative clause which is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/qu
Do not infringe still means make no laws.

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

News Flash!!~The Constitution is NOT a "Living Document" the wording was not meant to change. God you sound like Bill Clinton and OBAMA.. The document is what it is!!!!.. Quit tryin to interpret the document~You also remind me of a preacher tryin to interpret the Bible to suit what you want to convey.. It doesn't Work that way!.. The document was written by our founders as it is.. it is this Modern gov't tryin to change what our founders wrote.. and I as a citizen of this United States Of America Claim my HUMAN right to protect myself against enemies foreign and domestic as well as any that would try to invade my home, be that my personal home or my country... from Invaders foreign and domestic...Get over your liberal judgeship.. and get a grip on reality!..

Tug484

PeterS

Okay, so you're saying that the Prefatory clause states the purpose of the Operative clause. That means the purpose of the operative clause is to provide (I'm assuming arms) for a well-regulated militia, as they [the militia] are necessary for the security of a free state. Now, are you happy and how did what I say change?

And I have to ask, where is self-defense mentioned in any of the second amendment? Aren't you a strict constitutionalist and as a strict constitutionalist you have to insist that the meaning of the constitution is what it says it is, correct? You won't tolerate any of the selective interpretation that we liberals like to employ, will you? Yet you are having me read everything but the second amendment to derive its meaning when its meaning, simply by reading it, isn't that hard to understand. I suspect this is because the only place you can find support for your perspective is through a selective reading of certain Federalist papers. If that's the case why are you arguing with my interpretation of those same federalist papers since the sections I outlined reinforce exactly what I've been saying all along?

Also, since you are waving Heller all over the place Scalia concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service. Now the question begged is whether a weapon that can lay waste to a school, or bar, or workplace, or church can be considered ''unusual and dangerous" and therefore being worthy of being banned? Tic Toc Blade. The time is running out and your precious semi-auto will soon be gone...

PeterS

It can change through a constitutional amendment and where in the second amendment does it say anything about self-defense? If it's not a living document why do you conservatives continually try to make it one...