Guns

haymarket said:

If you think you are able, by all means do.

Click to expand...

Well since you asked.

haymarket said:

Years ago, one could support gun owners rights and still lobby for legislation on the subject. That is no longer possible in this current political environment which has taken a hard right turn. For some - and I say some and not all or even a majority - the First Amendment has supplanted the Second Amendment regarding gun rights in that their devotion and love of firearms is far closer to a religious like fervor based on willful belief than anything else. And right from little many are taught it is dangerous and nonproductive to mess with peoples religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

Bull****, the same groups are using the same flawed arguments from the '60s today verbatim and they are still being talked about, that you consider rebuttle with FACT to be some kind of attack is paranoid at best and dishonest at worst. It's also telling that you would whine about not being able to restrict the rights of others. Secondly, mischaracterizing people who fight for any right is as blatantly false and misleading as it comes. But of course integrity and being correct weren't the goals.

Once upon a time, when we had mass killings in which firearms were involved, rational people discussed it and ideas for legislation were introduced and debated. We just saw three young people slaughtered in Chardon, Ohio and instead of spurring national discussion, those who want to do so are charged with using dead children to promote an agenda which is never identified.

Click to expand...

Bull****, the only thing that happened is anti-gun zealots paraded these victims out as a "see, this is why we need........." argument in a sick and sub-human attempt to put the anti-gun agenda above all else including dignity, manners, and human sympathy. You are wrong here.

There simply is no current environment for rational discussion on this topic

Click to expand...

Bull****, there was plenty of civil discussion going on in this thread alone, until people unnamed came in with the same predictable and tired talking points.

You want more?

Do you believe that the Second Amendment as it is now seen in the USA is a pure good? Or do you see it as something with a good side and a bad side but where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Click to expand...

Pure logic fail. It does not matter what anyone sees the right as, it exists whether you like it or not and the writing is clear. Yet another example of you being WRONG. And displaying a severe lack of knowledge of things both firearm and constitutional. Emotional or rhetorical arguments are massive fails when dealing with the BOR.

I am pro Second Amendment. I am convinced that

Click to expand...

The **** you are. I have seen nothing at all to indicate you either know about or support the second and neither has anyone else. You come at the issue with conditions which automatically invalidates your claim.

Anyway, that's all I can stand to look up right now. I'm sure there's more.

TurtleDude said:

lets get back to the idiocy of calling victims of criminals heroes of the SECOND AMENDMENT

were the victims of 9-11 heroes of TOLERANCE OF ISLAM

Columbine-HEROES OF GOTH?

Click to expand...

Take up your cause with the nation who honored them and those who paid and built their memorials.

Thunder said:

you are talking about "militias", as in private armies.

I am talking about "MILITIA"...as in the ones prescribed in our Constitution.

Click to expand...

Read back, I've got you both ways. They are in the militia as able bodied men 18-45, they are private militia in that you must have a common ground(membership) to be involved in their activities, and they drill regularly. They organize as a unit and they have used weapons. That being said they are the definition of a militia in every sense of the word. You have no standing with your current argument.

please, show me how private armies, that are not sworn to uphold the Constitution of the USA, and are not willing & able to be trained, supervised, disciplined by a State selected Officer....and are not willing & able to be activated by the government to defend the country from outside enemies and put down insurrections, is legal?

Click to expand...

Don't have to, you are making a false claim. They are subject to call ups during martial law, and are not prohibited by the U.S.C. or any state laws so they are legal. What part do you not get?

LAMid - nothing you reproduced from me in your post was refuted by you as factually wrong. Nothing. you argue about your opinion - so what? You hold your views. So what?

You are still impotent to find one thing that I am factually wrong about regarding the Second Amendment.

haymarket said:

LAMid - nothing you reproduced from me in your post was refuted by you as factually wrong. Nothing. you argue about your opinion - so what? You hold your views. So what?

You are still impotent to find one thing that I am factually wrong about regarding the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

All of it was factually wrong on your part. The facts are you didn't bring any facts at all, just opinions passed on as facts. Secondly I readily defeated your "all reasonable people....blah, blah, blah" crap, just in this thread alone there was reasonable debate.

haymarket said:

Take up your cause with the nation who honored them and those who paid and built their memorials.

Click to expand...

being honored with a memorial doesn't make one a hero. Heroes are people like Alvin York, Audie Murphy or former Cornell Lacrosse All American Eamon McEneaney, an EVP of Cantor Fitzgerald who rescued people during the first WTC bombing and died in the second

LaMidRighter said:

Read back, I've got you both ways. They are in the militia as able bodied men 18-45...

Click to expand...

wow, quote mining the Militia Act of 1792? that's pretty dishonest.

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act,.........it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed


sooo.....were the Black Panthers willing to fulfill their duties so prescribed by this Militia Act?

have they shown up for exercises or service at the behest of the Federal government?

I thought not. By any clear & honest understanding of what the Constitution & the Militia Act of 1792 calls for, our modern-day right wing "militias"...are in fact NOT the Militia. Nor are the Black Panthers.

and why not? they have no State appointed commanding officer. They are unwilling to follow the orders & supervision of the Department of Defense. They are unwilling to assist the govt. in putting down insurrections & mutinees against the laws of the United States of America.

haymarket said:

In college did they teach you about the debate fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum?

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

It matters not what you call and what you do not. Visit the memorials and see for yourself. Or is your opinion more important than those who built those monuments and memorials and called them heroes?

Click to expand...

I must not understand the fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum.

Thunder said:

wow, quote mining the Militia Act of 1792? that's pretty dishonest.

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act,.........it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed


sooo.....were the Black Panthers willing to fulfill their duties so prescribed by this Militia Act?

have they shown up for exercises or service at the behest of the Federal government?

I thought not. By any clear & honest understanding of what the Constitution & the Militia Act of 1792 calls for, our modern-day right wing "militias"...are in fact NOT the Militia. Nor are the Black Panthers.

and why not? they have no State appointed commanding officer. They are unwilling to follow the orders & supervision of the Department of Defense. They are unwilling to assist the govt. in putting down insurrections & mutinees against the laws of the United States of America.

Click to expand...

Desperate much? If you read correctly any one of them assembled and armed was the very definition of the first clause which is still in use, the second is not. If they did not fill out their selective service cards they are still considered part of the militia but broke federal law. Which part do you want me to address?

LaMidRighter said:

Desperate much?...

Click to expand...

you're clearly projecting.

the Militia Act of 1792 clearly spells out all the requirements & conditions of The Militia.

its clear as day. its unambiguous. no private army that refuses to fight for the USA, enforce our laws, put down insurrections against the laws of the USA, assist in putting down mutinees against the USA, and answer to the call of the President of the United States, is NO Militia.

Thunder said:

you're clearly projecting.

the Militia Act of 1792 clearly spells out all the requirements & conditions of The Militia.

its clear as day. its unambiguous. no private army that refuses to fight for the USA, enforce our laws, put down insurrections against the laws of the USA, assist in putting down mutinees against the USA, and answer to the call of the President of the United States, is NO Militia.

Click to expand...

At least have the integrity to quote the whole statement, especially the part that proves you wrong. Anyway I'm tired of this, you're wrong and you know it.

LaMidRighter said:

At least have the integrity to quote the whole statement, especially the part that proves you wrong. Anyway I'm tired of this, you're wrong and you know it.

Click to expand...

no, YOU'RE wrong....and YOU know it.

the Militia, and all it entails, is clear as day. keep denying if you like.

given militia membership or potential membership in a militia is not a necessary condition for exercising second amendment rights who really cares about what is the current status of the militia?

Thunder said:

no, YOU'RE wrong....and YOU know it.

the Militia, and all it entails, is clear as day. keep denying if you like.

Click to expand...

Whatever you've gotta tell yourself. Guess you didn't realize that "All able bodied males 18-45" Is the EXACT definition of the militia. All the other things you are dwelling on involve being called to service, meaning you can read into it as this "if you are called to service you must have and drill with a duty weapon" This is no longer black powder muskets but rather firearms of the typical military caliber. Now, any body that drills in order to coordinate paramilitary action, a.k.a. all of the groups I have stated DO EXACTLY THAT ****ing thing. That you refuse to see it is your problem and your fail is self evident........well to the rest of us anyway.

TurtleDude said:

given militia membership or potential membership in a militia is not a necessary condition for exercising second amendment rights who really cares about what is the current status of the militia?

Click to expand...

I get where you are going but Thunder brought it out as a pet issue. It's important here because it's yet another thing he lacks knowledge on within the topic.

LaMidRighter said:

Whatever you've gotta tell yourself. Guess you didn't realize that "All able bodied males 18-45" Is the EXACT definition of the militia....

Click to expand...

sure.........IF you disregard the entire damn Article 1 Section 8 of the USC and almost the entire text of the Militia Act of 1792.

but hey, if that's how you argue your ideas, feel free to disregard whatever doesn't vindicate your false assumptions.

LaMidRighter said:

I get where you are going but Thunder brought it out as a pet issue. It's important here because it's yet another thing he lacks knowledge on within the topic.

Click to expand...

projecting...again?

Thunder said:

sure.........IF you disregard the entire damn Article 1 Section 8 of the USC and almost the entire text of the Militia Act of 1792.

but hey, if that's how you argue your ideas, feel free to disregard whatever doesn't vindicate your false assumptions.

Click to expand...

Misquoting again. I explained how it works, you don't read constitutional matters correctly and you are dishonest so. I will go ahead and disregard everything else from you from now on.

LaMidRighter said:

Misquoting again. I explained how it works, you don't read constitutional matters correctly and you are dishonest so....

Click to expand...

again, you are projecting.

the Militia Act and Article 1 Section 8 of the USC is clear, as to what constitutes a Militia..and what does not.

any private army that refuses to abide by these clear regulations & specifications, is NOT the Militia.

Thunder said:

again, you are projecting.

the Militia Act and Article 1 Section 8 of the USC is clear, as to what constitutes a Militia..and what does not.

any private army that refuses to abide by these clear regulations & specifications, is NOT the Militia.

Click to expand...

if the government becomes tyrannical and a widescale revolt takes place to oppose the tyranny would that militia
be proper

Here's reading material for anyone who wants to get a better than lacking basic understanding of the militia.
Militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Click to expand...

For those choosing Thunder's limited grasp of the militia this important figure from the time of the founding spells it out.

From the site THUNDER!

What distinguishes those engaged in militia from an army
1.The authority for militia is any threat to public safety.
2.Those active in militia are usually not bound for a fixed term of service, or paid for it.
3.Those active in militia cannot expect arms, supplies, or officers to be provided to them.
4.No one has the authority to order militia to surrender, disarm, or disband.

Click to expand...

Get it yet?

LaMidRighter said:

All of it was factually wrong on your part. The facts are you didn't bring any facts at all, just opinions passed on as facts. Secondly I readily defeated your "all reasonable people....blah, blah, blah" crap, just in this thread alone there was reasonable debate.

Click to expand...

You did nothing.

You still do nothing.

You have not refuted one thing I have stated as fact. Not one thing. if you think you have lets make this really really simple for you.

Take one thing in my post that you believe is a misstatement of reality and using objective evidence other than your own opinion to prove me wrong. Lets see you do that.

TurtleDude said:

being honored with a memorial doesn't make one a hero. Heroes are people like Alvin York, Audie Murphy or former Cornell Lacrosse All American Eamon McEneaney, an EVP of Cantor Fitzgerald who rescued people during the first WTC bombing and died in the second

Click to expand...

Your argument is with the nation and the people who honored the dead with those memorials and monuments and label them as heroes. And I strongly suspect you are only doing that because you are in a corner and do not know how to get out of it. I seriously doubt if you can point to a single post where you questioned the hero worthy status of these people before this thread ever started. I stand ready to read it if you can present such evidence.

Truckstop said:

I must not understand the fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum.

Click to expand...

You clearly seem to not understand it as Turtle is attempting to use it.

haymarket said:

You did nothing.

You still do nothing.

You have not refuted one thing I have stated as fact. Not one thing. if you think you have lets make this really really simple for you.

Take one thing in my post that you believe is a misstatement of reality and using objective evidence other than your own opinion to prove me wrong. Lets see you do that.

Click to expand...

do you have anything to actually discuss on guns other than thinking the people murdered by nutcases paid the price for our rights