One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The truth about gun control
Page <<first <prev 8 of 9 next>
Aug 18, 2019 05:17:16   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
PeterS wrote:
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?
Yep, and a well-regulated militia is made up of individual American citizens skilled with firearms. A well-regulated militia IS NOT the National Guard nor is it a body of armed men subject to command and control by the federal government.

You are obviously unable to grasp the concept of Federalism. Maybe you should actually study the Constitution of the United States.

Quote:
Tic Toc Blade. The time is running out and your precious semi-auto will soon be gone...



Reply
Aug 18, 2019 05:41:10   #
PeterS
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Whoa, baby, that is one hell of a cherry picker you are running. You need to fix it. It's in need of some serious maintenance, it's tearing off limbs and crushing the cherries.

Fix it then get back to us. Make damned sure you understand the concept of Federalism when you work on it. And, if you feel it necessary to quote a Federalist essay, quote the entire thing, and make sure you understand its purpose. FEDERALIST No. 46 is not about "Military and militia", it is The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared.

"the prefatory clause states the purpose of the second amendment, you know, why it was written--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. What the purpose isn't, is to give you the right to bear arms" FALSE. FLAWED LOGIC.

The prefatory clause states the purpose of the OPERATIVE CLAUSE, which is "the right of the PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. (DC v Heller)
Whoa, baby, that is one hell of a cherry picker yo... (show quote)


Lastly, why does the operative clause need a prefatory clause? If the second is purely about the right to bear arms what relevance is a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state?

What I have a feeling Blade is that Heller, as with all things SCOTUS, is based upon ideology and not what the founders were trying to do when the second was written. But each time someone grabs an AR or AK and decides to use them as a WMD the second amendment becomes less and less relevant anyway. Banning a category of arms doesn't negate the right to bear arms any more than eliminating the M-16 deprived the public of a constitutional right.

And yes, I realize people will always try to own semi-autos, but economics will take over, pricing it out of the reach for the majority in this country. People are just going to have to learn how to be quick shooters if they want the rush of a semi-auto feel as there will be no more 100 round drums to mow us down with...

Reply
Aug 18, 2019 06:05:55   #
PeterS
 
1) were the Minutemen a well-regulated militia and were they under the control of the federal government?
2) if the militia isn't under the control of the federal government then how could the founding fathers use them in the defense of a free state?
3) if a militia replaced a freestanding army how could the federal government be of any danger to them?

You conservatives have destroyed the meaning of the second amendment all so you could clutch to your own paranoid need to protect yourself from the government--when if you had just followed the second amendment as it was written the Federal Government never would have had the power to challenge you in the first place. As is, your ability to defend yourself against a tyrant is more illusion than it is fact, as you sit there with your AR15 when those who would oppose you would have the finest in the latest of small and large arms fire. Drones aplenty and the technology to use them. You are going to have to sit there and worry over being killed by a .223 or a Hellfire missile and being helpless which it is going to be. But hey, at least you will feel like a tough guy until you are dead...

Reply
 
 
Aug 18, 2019 13:35:46   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
PeterS wrote:
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...


Why is it that liberals always leave the second part of the 2nd amendment out when they quote it,
you leave out a very crucial part of the 2nd amendment!..
"the right of the PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

“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.”

A well regulated militia, If we the citizens are called up to be in a militia, we are well armed and ready to go!

What part of shall not be infringed did you not understand.. Pretty convienient of you to leave that part out.. Any amendment on "arms" is an infringement!..

Infringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB
infringed (past tense) · infringed (past participle)

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms:
contravene · violate · transgress · break · breach · commit a breach of · disobey · defy · flout · fly in the face of · ride roughshod over · kick against · fail to comply with · [more]
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed" · "I wouldn't infringe on his privacy"
synonyms:
undermine · erode · diminish · weaken · impair · damage · compromise · limit · curb · check · place a limit on · encroach on · interfere with · disturb · disrupt

Reply
Aug 18, 2019 22:40:57   #
Navigator
 
slatten49 wrote:
Turn-about is fair play, Navigator.

However, I stand with the facts and logic in my posts. And, as I posted in another thread....

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end...there it is."
[Quote/Winston Churchill]
img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)


Nice quote but your interpretation of facts is often illogical and your statement of "facts" are often statements of things oft repeated but not actually so.

Reply
Aug 18, 2019 23:09:00   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
PeterS wrote:
1) were the Minutemen a well-regulated militia and were they under the control of the federal government?
2) if the militia isn't under the control of the federal government then how could the founding fathers use them in the defense of a free state?
3) if a militia replaced a freestanding army how could the federal government be of any danger to them?

You conservatives have destroyed the meaning of the second amendment all so you could clutch to your own paranoid need to protect yourself from the government--when if you had just followed the second amendment as it was written the Federal Government never would have had the power to challenge you in the first place. As is, your ability to defend yourself against a tyrant is more illusion than it is fact, as you sit there with your AR15 when those who would oppose you would have the finest in the latest of small and large arms fire. Drones aplenty and the technology to use them. You are going to have to sit there and worry over being killed by a .223 or a Hellfire missile and being helpless which it is going to be. But hey, at least you will feel like a tough guy until you are dead...
1) were the Minutemen a well-regulated militia and... (show quote)


The second amendment was NOT to protect Gov't, it was to protect free states & Fight Gov't tyranny!.. Get a grip, your just as apt to have your own skewed views as any other Human on the planet!!..

Reply
Aug 18, 2019 23:25:12   #
Tug484
 
Larai wrote:
The second amendment was NOT to protect Gov't, it was to protect free states & Fight Gov't tyranny!.. Get a grip, your just as apt to have your own skewed views as any other Human on the planet!!..

Right on.

Reply
 
 
Aug 18, 2019 23:40:13   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
Tug484 wrote:
Right on.


Thanks Tug!

Reply
Aug 18, 2019 23:41:14   #
Tug484
 
Larai wrote:
Thanks Tug!


You're welcome, Larai.

Reply
Aug 18, 2019 23:45:57   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
PeterS wrote:
Lastly, why does the operative clause need a prefatory clause? If the second is purely about the right to bear arms what relevance is a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state?

What I have a feeling Blade is that Heller, as with all things SCOTUS, is based upon ideology and not what the founders were trying to do when the second was written. But each time someone grabs an AR or AK and decides to use them as a WMD the second amendment becomes less and less relevant anyway. Banning a category of arms doesn't negate the right to bear arms any more than eliminating the M-16 deprived the public of a constitutional right.

And yes, I realize people will always try to own semi-autos, but economics will take over, pricing it out of the reach for the majority in this country. People are just going to have to learn how to be quick shooters if they want the rush of a semi-auto feel as there will be no more 100 round drums to mow us down with...
Lastly, why does the operative clause need a prefa... (show quote)
Look, we know that you harbor an extreme anti-gun bias, we know that you are strident in your attempts to interpret the 2nd Amendment and everything the founders have written to support it in an effort to make it fit that agenda. We know that you are obsessed with a particular type of firearm, so much so that you are irrational in attacking it. We know that you are ignorant of the reasons it was invented and the popularity of that particular type of firearm.

Your tactics in arguing over the evils of a semi-auto firearm are no different than the tactics you use to attack Christians. You cherry pick from the Bible whatever you feel you can interpret to fit your hostile agenda and you cherry pick from the writings on gun rights in the same way. You use the Bible and the 2nd Amendment as weapons. How you can rationalize using such things to defeat their own meanings is a monumental failure in logic and reason.

Make an original argument, create an original alternative, come up with a brand new concept, write a constitution. Stop molding and bending and twisting and corrupting the Bible and the 2nd Amendment in effort to force them to cut their own throats.

The semi-automatic firearm is an accurate, efficient and reliable gun, but it is just a gun, it doesn't have a "semi-auto feel", and it has no mind of its own.

Economics is not going to "price it out of reach". For thirty years, the AR platform has enjoyed a popularity not seen since the old Colt six-shooter. For 30 years, the AR15 and its variants have been manufactured as a fully functional firearm and in kits for do-it-yourself enthusiasts. A DIY shooter can either order the AR in a kit, or he can simply order the parts based on his own particular needs. In all cases, whether buying a fully functional AR15, a kit, or nothing but parts, the upper receiver in all of its manifestations--80% upper or ready to go--must be purchased through an FFL dealer. The purchase of an upper receiver must be processed as if it were a fully functional firearm.

Do you have any idea how many shooters hand load their own ammunition?

FYI: The M16 is a military weapon, it is a select fire infantry rifle. Civilians cannot purchase one of these.
And, 100 round drums are a novelty item, they are expensive, require constant maintenance, they are bulky, heavy, and wasteful. Very few shooters ever mess with them.

Reply
Aug 19, 2019 00:25:48   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Look, we know that you harbor an extreme anti-gun bias, we know that you are strident in your attempts to interpret the 2nd Amendment and everything the founders have written to support it in an effort to make it fit that agenda. We know that you are obsessed with a particular type of firearm, so much so that you are irrational in attacking it. We know that you are ignorant of the reasons it was invented and the popularity of that particular type of firearm.

Your tactics in arguing over the evils of a semi-auto firearm are no different than the tactics you use to attack Christians. You cherry pick from the Bible whatever you feel you can interpret to fit your hostile agenda and you cherry pick from the writings on gun rights in the same way. You use the Bible and the 2nd Amendment as weapons. How you can rationalize using such things to defeat their own meanings is a monumental failure in logic and reason.

Make an original argument, create an original alternative, come up with a brand new concept, write a constitution. Stop molding and bending and twisting and corrupting the Bible and the 2nd Amendment in effort to force them to cut their own throats.

The semi-automatic firearm is an accurate, efficient and reliable gun, but it is just a gun, it doesn't have a "semi-auto feel", and it has no mind of its own.

Economics is not going to "price it out of reach". For thirty years, the AR platform has enjoyed a popularity not seen since the old Colt six-shooter. For 30 years, the AR15 and its variants have been manufactured as a fully functional firearm and in kits for do-it-yourself enthusiasts. A DIY shooter can either order the AR in a kit, or he can simply order the parts based on his own particular needs. In all cases, whether buying a fully functional AR15, a kit, or nothing but parts, the upper receiver in all of its manifestations--80% upper or ready to go--must be purchased through an FFL dealer. The purchase of an upper receiver must be processed as if it were a fully functional firearm.

Do you have any idea how many shooters hand load their own ammunition?

FYI: The M16 is a military weapon, it is a select fire infantry rifle. Civilians cannot purchase one of these.
And, 100 round drums are a novelty item, they are expensive, require constant maintenance, they are bulky, heavy, and wasteful. Very few shooters ever mess with them.
Look, we know that you harbor an extreme anti-gun ... (show quote)



Reply
 
 
Aug 19, 2019 04:48:28   #
maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
PeterS wrote:
So how is controlling people going to be easier than controlling guns?




Illegal weapons will never be discovered unless the wielder is caught with the weapon. We KNOW where the people are.

Reply
Aug 19, 2019 06:52:25   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Navigator wrote:
Nice quote but your interpretation of facts is often illogical and your statement of "facts" are often statements of things oft repeated but not actually so.

It often appears that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be said or written to convince zealots from either side of the ideological or political persuasion of facts they absolutely refuse to believe. One may as well attempt pi**ing on a raging forest fire in a futile effort to put it out.

Reply
Aug 19, 2019 13:25:06   #
maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
alabuck wrote:
——————-
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!
——————- br Navigator, br br I respectfully disagr... (show quote)




Wow! I get it! We just don't know what we are reading because the language is different. Are you sure? Let's look at your examples;
"can" If you get canned, you are in jail or prison...if you have canned peaches, it means that you have preserved them...a tin can is something you kick down the road or a submarine...a can is a metal container to hold food for long periods of time, a can is a small confined space. A can is a toilet. Our language is complicated and the same word spelled the same can have several meanings.
If I were hunting in the 1800's, I would not know of a feminine product that hadn't been invented called a tampon. However, if you were talking about muzzle loading firearms, I would have known what you were talking about. Gay used to mean happy and faggot used to mean a small piece of wood to put on a fire...now both mean homosexual men. A fag used to be a cigarette.
Enough already...my point is that meanings of words are highly dependent on context. According to you, we don't know what Shakespeare was saying, even though we put on his plays in the same language in which they were written. What about Homer or Socrates? Do we not know what they meant because we don't speak Latin or Greek anymore?
Why do we think our government can turn against us? The majority of Americans were against gay marriage ( I believe that's the whole premise of "democracy"), but our government knew better than the majority. The majority didn't want prayer taken out of schools but it happened. The majority does not believe there many, many genders, but did that stop our government? Like California? Where is illegal to call a person with a penis a man, even if it's a doctor making a report? That's democracy? You say Trump is destroying our "democracy" but you call laws made for the very few "democracy"?

Are you very sure it's us who are misunderstanding English? The defense of a free state is NOT defending the Federal government, but it IS defending a free state against the Federal government if it becomes Tyrannical. Our founders knew full well that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they took steps to limit powers and gave us the right to protect ourselves from enemies foreign OR domestic, that is, the right to "preserve" our foundations, not change or destroy them.

Reply
Aug 19, 2019 18:06:54   #
Rose42
 
maximus wrote:
Wow! I get it! We just don't know what we are reading because the language is different. Are you sure? Let's look at your examples;
"can" If you get canned, you are in jail or prison...if you have canned peaches, it means that you have preserved them...a tin can is something you kick down the road or a submarine...a can is a metal container to hold food for long periods of time, a can is a small confined space. A can is a toilet. Our language is complicated and the same word spelled the same can have several meanings.
If I were hunting in the 1800's, I would not know of a feminine product that hadn't been invented called a tampon. However, if you were talking about muzzle loading firearms, I would have known what you were talking about. Gay used to mean happy and faggot used to mean a small piece of wood to put on a fire...now both mean homosexual men. A fag used to be a cigarette.
Enough already...my point is that meanings of words are highly dependent on context. According to you, we don't know what Shakespeare was saying, even though we put on his plays in the same language in which they were written. What about Homer or Socrates? Do we not know what they meant because we don't speak Latin or Greek anymore?
Why do we think our government can turn against us? The majority of Americans were against gay marriage ( I believe that's the whole premise of "democracy"), but our government knew better than the majority. The majority didn't want prayer taken out of schools but it happened. The majority does not believe there many, many genders, but did that stop our government? Like California? Where is illegal to call a person with a penis a man, even if it's a doctor making a report? That's democracy? You say Trump is destroying our "democracy" but you call laws made for the very few "democracy"?

Are you very sure it's us who are misunderstanding English? The defense of a free state is NOT defending the Federal government, but it IS defending a free state against the Federal government if it becomes Tyrannical. Our founders knew full well that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they took steps to limit powers and gave us the right to protect ourselves from enemies foreign OR domestic, that is, the right to "preserve" our foundations, not change or destroy them.
Wow! I get it! We just don't know what we are read... (show quote)



Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 9 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.