• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My fellow gun owners, are you a single issue voter?

Fledermaus said:
Looks like the OP abandoned the thread.
Click to expand...

I was one of the first responders to the OP. My last line was prophetic. All gun owners are nowhere near expert enough in either how the weapon works or how to behave when in possession of a weapon. My response was meant to elicit responses from a 'hot button' issue. " Mission Accomplished"! Let me add another layer to the topic, "when do the rights of the group take priority over the rights of the individual?"

The second amendment is way too emotional an issue to be debated rationally on a forum such as this one. I kinda knew what was going to happen. I am neither and expert or totally uniformed as far as weapons are concerned, long weapons and hand guns.

To the poster whose 'personal space' extends to 500m, take a good sight picture and good luck with the courts if you hit an intruder anywhere near that range.
 
Rexedgar said:
I was one of the first responders to the OP. My last line was prophetic. All gun owners are nowhere near expert enough in either how the weapon works or how to behave when in possession of a weapon.
Click to expand...

By "all gun owners", did you mean "no gun owners"?

Let me add another layer to the topic, "when do the rights of the group take priority over the rights of the individual?"
Click to expand...

When do you think?

The second amendment is way too emotional an issue to be debated rationally on a forum such as this one. I kinda knew what was going to happen. I am neither and expert or totally uniformed as far as weapons are concerned, long weapons and hand guns.
Click to expand...

It's been discussed rationally before you arrived and will continue to to so once you depart.

To the poster whose 'personal space' extends to 500m, take a good sight picture and good luck with the courts if you hit an intruder anywhere near that range.
Click to expand...

If TD feels he is threatened by an intruder at 500 meters, he's got both the shooting skills and decades of legal experience to not need luck.
 
Its only a single issue for me when assholes are attacking the 2A
 
Rucker61 said:
By "all gun owners", did you mean "no gun owners"?
Thanks for the grammar lesson....


When do you think?
When the rights of the individual infringe on the group.


It's been discussed rationally before you arrived and will continue to to so once you depart.
I've been run out of better places!


If TD feels he is threatened by an intruder at 500 meters, he's got both the shooting skills and decades of legal experience to not need luck.
Click to expand...
Under the 'stand your ground' rule?
 
Rexedgar said:
I was one of the first responders to the OP. My last line was prophetic. All gun owners are nowhere near expert enough in either how the weapon works or how to behave when in possession of a weapon. My response was meant to elicit responses from a 'hot button' issue. " Mission Accomplished"! Let me add another layer to the topic, "when do the rights of the group take priority over the rights of the individual?"

The second amendment is way too emotional an issue to be debated rationally on a forum such as this one. I kinda knew what was going to happen. I am neither and expert or totally uniformed as far as weapons are concerned, long weapons and hand guns.

To the poster whose 'personal space' extends to 500m, take a good sight picture and good luck with the courts if you hit an intruder anywhere near that range.
Click to expand...

^^^^^
"People who correctly tell me that my ignorant, uninformed musings on a topic I know nothing about are wrong, legally, historically, and practically, are too emotional to be rational."

:roll:
 
Rexedgar said:
Under the 'stand your ground' rule?
Click to expand...

Apparently another legal concept you know nothing about, if you bring it up in this context.
 
Harshaw said:
^^^^^
"People who correctly tell me that my ignorant, uninformed musings on a topic I know nothing about are wrong, legally, historically, and practically, are too emotional to be rational."

:roll:
Click to expand...
Thanks for making my point!
 
Mario said:
I'm not a gun owner, but I have acquaintances who are and most of them seem to be single issue people. They seem to be good people and want to educate me on guns. It's just a bit scary to me.
Click to expand...

It's better to be educated on firearms than not. Especially youngsters.

I'm not a single issue voter but, I have a list of necessaries.
 
Rexedgar said:
Thanks for making my point!
Click to expand...

You were going to say it no matter what response you got. It was your intent from the get-go.

Are you so new to message boards that you think your shtick is somehow stealthy and clever?
 
Harshaw said:
You were going to say it no matter what response you got. It was your intent from the get-go.

Are you so new to message boards that you think your shtick is somehow stealthy and clever?
Click to expand...

I ask you return to my previous posts on this thread. What schtick? OP asked if 2A was a black/white issue. II replied that I thought not. Included some additional thought. I must be too stupid to make sense of your collection of words re: 'your ignorant, uninformed musings'. Yes I subscribed last week and thought I would find a little higher level of palaver.
 
Harshaw said:
You were going to say it no matter what response you got. It was your intent from the get-go.

Are you so new to message boards that you think your shtick is somehow stealthy and clever?
Click to expand...

If you feel this is a 'shtick', ain't you dumb for getting 'dragged in'!
 
Rexedgar said:
I ask you return to my previous posts on this thread. What schtick? OP asked if 2A was a black/white issue. II replied that I thought not. Included some additional thought. I must be too stupid to make sense of your collection of words re: 'your ignorant, uninformed musings'. Yes I subscribed last week and thought I would find a little higher level of palaver.
Click to expand...

I'll help, then - your entire first post in this thread.

The ignorance of which has already been explained to you.
 
Rexedgar said:
If you feel this is a 'shtick', ain't you dumb for getting 'dragged in'!
Click to expand...

It's obviously shtick, and this post here solidifies the confirmation of it.
 
Rexedgar said:
I was one of the first responders to the OP. My last line was prophetic. All gun owners are nowhere near expert enough in either how the weapon works or how to behave when in possession of a weapon. My response was meant to elicit responses from a 'hot button' issue. " Mission Accomplished"! Let me add another layer to the topic, "when do the rights of the group take priority over the rights of the individual?"

The second amendment is way too emotional an issue to be debated rationally on a forum such as this one. I kinda knew what was going to happen. I am neither and expert or totally uniformed as far as weapons are concerned, long weapons and hand guns.

To the poster whose 'personal space' extends to 500m, take a good sight picture and good luck with the courts if you hit an intruder anywhere near that range.
Click to expand...

You respond to my post that is not about you and ignore the post I directed towards you.

What arms do you believe a Militia would have?
 
Fledermaus said:
You respond to my post that is not about you and ignore the post I directed towards you.

What arms do you believe a Militia would have?
Click to expand...

That is a thoughtful question, sorry if i missed it. Checking the definition of 'militia', the words "military and organized" are used. Using those descriptions, I would expect to find 'military style' (long weapons, with magazine loaded ammunition). The 2A mentions 'well regulated'. What does this mean to you?

I am not against the Second Amendment. To me it leaves too many ways to make it work for whatever argument you line up with. I am not a "Constitutional scholar" or a lawyer, nor am I an armorer. I just don't understand some of the positions on this topic. The first insults are usually by those who's position is not so clear to themselves.
 
Fledermaus said:
You respond to my post that is not about you and ignore the post I directed towards you.

What arms do you believe a Militia would have?
Click to expand...
All I saw was that you felt the OP had bailed, I just stirred the pot a bit.
 
Rexedgar said:
That is a thoughtful question, sorry if i missed it. Checking the definition of 'militia', the words "military and organized" are used. Using those descriptions, I would expect to find 'military style' (long weapons, with magazine loaded ammunition). The 2A mentions 'well regulated'. What does this mean to you?

I am not against the Second Amendment. To me it leaves too many ways to make it work for whatever argument you line up with. I am not a "Constitutional scholar" or a lawyer, nor am I an armorer. I just don't understand some of the positions on this topic. The first insults are usually by those who's position is not so clear to themselves.
Click to expand...

So, by definition the arms that are protected include military style weapons.

Who is the Militia in the United States?
 
Fledermaus said:
So, by definition the arms that are protected include military style weapons.
If they are part of a 'well regulated militia'.
Who is the Militia in the United States?
Click to expand...

The closest that I can come to that is the Reserves or maybe the National Guard. I am not familiar with any "well regulated" militia in my area. There are as many gun owners as people though, more along the lines of a 'rabble'.
 
Rexedgar said:
The closest that I can come to that is the Reserves or maybe the National Guard. I am not familiar with any "well regulated" militia in my area. There are as many gun owners as people though, more along the lines of a 'rabble'.
Click to expand...

You aren't scoring points insulting gun owners.

NG and Reserve units are the Organized Militia.

The current United States Code states "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodies males at least 17 years if age and.... Blah blah blah..."

Basically all males not part of the Military, Guard or Reserves are Militia.
 
Rexedgar said:
The closest that I can come to that is the Reserves or maybe the National Guard. I am not familiar with any "well regulated" militia in my area. There are as many gun owners as people though, more along the lines of a 'rabble'.
Click to expand...

According to current US law 10 USC 311,:

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) 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.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Congress, as empowered by the Constitution, has defined the militia in law. Now you know.
 
Note: the National Guard flies F-15s.
 
Grand Mal said:
'Regulated' meant the same as 'maintained'? I doubt it. I think that this discussion needs to keep what was said in mind. The purpose of the 2nd was to ensure a well regulated militia, was it not? I'm pretty sure that whoever wrote it knew the word 'maintained' and would have used it, if that's what was meant.
So, regulated, according to the 2nd, what does it mean today? Does it mean 'no regulation'?
Click to expand...

No, the purpose of the 2nd was to insure that the people's right to bear arms would not be infringed. It was not about militias as they are not the subject of the sentence. The militia was mentioned as an example of a reason the people shall bear arms. It is not the reason people have the right.
 
Fledermaus said:
Looks like the OP abandoned the thread.
Click to expand...

I did not abandon the thread. I hit the sack and had to work a very long shift and took a nap lol. I'm catching up now, but the comment about going to a shooting range and renting a firearm made me laugh lol.
 
natsb said:
No, the purpose of the 2nd was to insure that the people's right to bear arms would not be infringed. It was not about militias as they are not the subject of the sentence. The militia was mentioned as an example of a reason the people shall bear arms. It is not the reason people have the right.
Click to expand...

which is the only sensible reading since the BOR was designed to guarantee and protect rights the founders assumed free men had long before the existence of the government and claiming one has to be a member of a government controlled entity to exercise a pre-existing right is idiotic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom