Does that mean that when the King James Bible quotes Jesus as saying “Suffer the little children to come unto me”, it meant Jesus was advising us to use corporal punishment to raise our children to be good Christians?
Original INTENT may be a somewhat controversial method of interpreting the constitution, original DEFINITIONS are not. The meaning of the constitution doesn’t change, the application of consistent principles are applied to new facts as society and technology evolves. Constitutional principles don’t really change. There was arguably always a right to an abortion just as there was always a right not to have a tracking device attached to your car and a right to spend a billion dollars on political campaigns.
Not militias. Militias are irregulars and one of the more important distinctions between regulars and irregulars was not how good of a shot they are but how disciplined they are.
But the militia does not.
And this is not necessarily true of militias. I think we are all militia.
You would have to prove that people who carry are more likely to pull that sort of shit than others. People with carry permits tend to commit virtually all crimes at a lower rate than the general public. So he is in fact less of a menace to society than the average person without a carry permit. And there is always the chance (small as it is) that he will save someone’s life one day.
You want to insist on 1700’s definitions of terms when reading the Constitution? OK. Then “arms” means flintlock muskets. You have the right to bear all of those you care to. But that’s all it covers. :rolleyes:
And no, you are not a member of anything that the word “militia” covers, however “regulated” including none at all, in any reality-based sense it has ever had. :rolleyes:
Now go back and dream your little porn dreams of adequacy, psychopath.
As a bare matter of legal fact, you are 100% incorrect.
This is so idiotic as to not bear addressing–not to mention the fact that “well-regulated” STILL means “in good order”, when speaking for example of a timepiece.
You are incorrect, again, on a matter of legal fact. The UCMJ excludes unlawful orders from being obeyed, and “I believed that was against the law or standing regulations” is a valid affirmative defense to a charge of disobeying orders.
You really should stop talking straight out your asshole, and bother actually knowing the barest facts about what you are spouting incoherently about.
At the point that becomes a risk, you might ask again. Currently the only threat of that sort of thing is coming from the parlor pink cash-worshipers masquerading as right-wing politicians.
I’m sorry I assumed you were capable of following a thread you were posting in. My apologies.
My point precisely. I specifically train in shoot/no-shoot scenarios in courses designed for law enforcement and security agents, because I have a serious concern about not making a mistake with any firearm I choose to carry.
Yet somehow, I’m supposed to NOT be worried about you getting drunk, angry, or scared and plowing your car into mine, or a crowd of kids at a bus stop, or whatever? You’re asking me to trust you with a self-propelled multi-ton bludgeoning weapon, instead of making you ride a bus operated by a safe and properly-trained motor vehicle operator?
Especially, it just occurred to me, because your insistence that none of us are in a “militia” is at least one piece of evidence that your attitude towards actual, signed laws that you don’t like it to pretend they don’t exist and get really angry.
Did you read what I wrote or are you being intentionally obtuse?
We don’t reinterpret the definition of speech because there are new mediums of speech just like we don’t redefine the definition fo arms because arms have gotten better.
The definition of speech and arms have not evolved, new forms of speech and new forms of arms have been invented. You are trying to redefine the word regulated to mean whatever the fuck you want it to mean. Now in today’s day and age with a standing army and as the alrgest most powerful military force the world has ever known, perhaps we don’t need the help of the militia to stave off the British hordes zerging down from Canada but we know that the Japanese were contemplating the invasion of the USA but decided against it because of our militia (armed citizenry).
I think the primary reason why so many gun advocates push the defense of tyranny angle is because there are not really very many people who think we need a militia for defense against Hirohito. Right now, the only country powerful enough to wage war on America is America, I don’t know this will always be the case.
I don’t think tyranny is very likely in my lifetime but it was only about 10 years ago when many people (myself included) thought we were headed down the road towards tyranny. If 9/11 had happened in the midst of the financial crisis, and the rise of the Tea party, don’t you think tyranny might have been on the horizon?
You only believe that because you have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t considermyself a militiaman but I am and you might be too. See the part below about the unorganized militia. If you want to go back to the 1700’s it is even clearer that I (and perhaps you) would be part of the militia.
I hope you never regret not having a gun.
Could you save me Googling and provide a link? I vaguely recall that there were civilians watching for submarines and aircraft on the West coast. I don’t recall anything on the East coast, where German submarines were actually sinking merchant vessels.
Thanks.
No, that’s just another piece of gun porn that **DA **has embraced wholeheartedly, without even cursory fact-checking. It does after all provide him some reassurance, regardless of the laughter from the reality-based community. Typical.
When’s the next militia drill, losers?
And does not, and never has, included “unorganized”. Not that I expect that ever to get through your wall of ideology.
You can’t even tell the truth about what you yourself have said. Your word, and you can scroll up and recheck, was “reasonable”. Lawful orders can include lots of things that you might consider unreasonable, but you take exception to them. Your chance to explain their unlawfulness, if that’s your argment , comes at your court-martial. In wartime, you might not even get the chance for that. IOW you are *not *capable of following orders, *not *capable of being part of a functioning military unit.
And when might that be? 
Nope, you’re still missing the point about* self-control*. Are you a robot?
I have far less ability to kill or maim you if I’m not carrying a device designed to do just that, no. You are far safer from me than I am from you. Have you ever been diagnosed with a learning disorder?
:D. But it’s a fact -some guy on the internet said it one time! What do you expect him to do, research? If only he could like to a YouTube video to prove it.
It is true, in fairness, that a major reason for the Allies cancelling Operations Olympic and Coronet, the invasion OF Japan, was that essentially the entire civilian population, children included, had been armed and/or trained with swords, mainly bamboo but still deadly.
Firearms, though? Not so much. Especially not the flintlock muskets that a 1700’s reading of the Second Amendment would have permitted them to bear.
Apparently there is no proof. And as far as the gun grabbers are concerned that means that their side is entirely vindicated and gun nuts have no arguments. Of course they can’t counter the fact that the best information we have tells us that:
-there are ~350,000 defensive gun uses while there are only ~700 accidental deaths
-CCWs tend to be more law abiding than the general population
-the overwhelming majority of people who commit gun murders aren’t allowed to possess guns in the first place (and therefore aren’'t likely to comply with any new gun laws like an AWB).
-their precious AWB would have been entirely ineffective
-the last AWB made no noticable difference in gun deaths
-every time they go apeshit with things like AWB’s they will actually hurt their own cause (like they did this last time around)
But no, they do a touchdown dance because some tangential thing I said turns out to be apocryphal. Its like they don’t realize they are doomed to keep losing this fight unless they get their head out of their ass and deal with the fact that there are 300 million guns in private hands and that there is about as much chance of getting those guns out of society as there is of our democracy turning into the sort of tyranny that gun nuts think can be staved off by an armed populace.
I suppose that this sort of pettifoggery, lies and insults is really all they have left. Its kind of sad really. They are never going to get even moderate gun control because they keep thinking that they have a monopoly on good ideas.
The VERY WORD is in the Federal Code, dingbat. 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
One can be in an unorganized militia and well-regulated if one is, for example, not currently organized into a unit, but knows the operation of his weaponry enough to be considered well-regulated in their use.
I’m sorry you can’t get it through your wall of ideology.
sigh Right. I can’t actually think of a place where an order I’d find prima facie unreasonable would not also be unlawful in my opinion.
At the rate we’re going, when the insane fundy Christian types finally decide to try to secede again. I rate it about a 0.0001% chance of happening in my lifetime, and that’s the most plausible scenario.
I’m not missing the point. I am pointing out that it cannot possibly apply ONLY to firearms.
No, you do not. Your car is an extremely deadly weapon–that is not its purpose, but that doesn’t change the fact it’s capable of delivering far more kinetic energy to a target than any firearm I could possibly buy.
At the wheel of the average car, any time you succumb to anger or fear or alcohol, you could choose to kill almost any person in your field of vision within seconds with no possibility of their survival–even my shitbox Neon could could generate more impact energy than 30 simultaneous shots of the most powerful bullet one can reasonably buy. Other uses of each tool nonwithstanding, the “angry/scared/drunk” argument applies equally to guns, vehicles, construction equipment, chainsaws, you name it–the only thing that even slightly varies is the potential effective range (but I’ve never seen the angry or drunk guy who was a good shot yet).
This Florida based CCW gun-ownerhas failed to learn anything from the Zimmerman case. If he would have just killed the vicious thugs attacking him, everything would have been fine.
Dude, NEVER bring a car to a gunfight. You will lose that shit every time.
It’s certainly hard to take you seriously when you repeat urban legends that are obviously bullshit to anyone who’s given the matter a second’s thought. I don’t know if you want to call it a touchdown dance, but I’d be embarrassed all to hell if I repeated something like that with a straight face. And this is the 2nd time for you.
Dude. The militia is the National Guard. It has been since 1903. You ain’t in the Guard? Then you ain’t in nothing out here in the real world that qualifies.
You’re really having trouble with the concept, aren’t you? Your opinion don’t mean jack. An order is an order. You don’t know what an order is or you wouldn’t be qualifying it.
Out here in the real world, meanwhile, we have tens of thousands of real gun deaths every year. But those, to you, are acceptable in order to prevent something that you recognize is not going to happen in the real world. How is that sane?
You’re trying to pick definitional standards, on a word by word basis based on the result you wish to achieve. If you think that convinces anyone but your fellow fetishists, you’re mistaken.
OK, you can keep your damn gun if you stop driving. What, you want to drive too, not just keep something else that is intended to kill or maim? Then guess what, fool, you *are *more dangerous than me.
Damuri, a point does not become tangential just because it blows up in your face. You’ve been proven once again to be a fantasizing little fool. Deal with it, learn from it, grow.
You are welcome to take me seriously or not, I can’t stop you either way. If you think I am generally uninformed or misinformed and that people like Elvis have a better factual understanding on the issue, then I can’t stop you.
Does it undermine Hentor’s credibility when I provide evidence that CCWs are more law abiding than the general public? Does it undermine Elvis’s credibility when I provide evidence that the vast majority of gun murders are committed by people who are not allowed to possess guns? Of course not. It is their reaction to being presented with this evidence that undermines their credibility.
I try to admit mistakes visibly, vocally and immediately. My mistakes have been misreading a Texas report about no murders committed by a CCW in one year to say that CCW’s don’t commit murder and referring to a very frequently repeated apocryphal statement for which there is an absence of evidence (not an evidence of absence but certainly not enough to support making the statement). I think I recognized both of these immediately.
The people I am debating with spend their efforts weaseling around admitting mistake because their mistakes would undermine the structural supports of their arguments. I’ve turned around 180 degrees in some recent debates, I can’t think of any examples of Elvis doing so (or Hentor for that matter), they are welcome to provide some examples (unless they insist that they have never been wrong about anything). Its part of what this board is supposed to be about but that’s not how these guys seem to be built.
I am open minded on the gun issue (and hopefully all other issues) but if you want to change my mind on the AWB (or any type of confiscation) you have to bring new facts. I don’t think any set of facts would change the minds of the gun grabbers like Elvis (and the same could probably be said of some of the gun nuts too) or Hentor (Hentor would just do a better job than Elvis of rationalizing why he can maintain his beliefs despite the new evidence, Elvis would just start calling people baby killer and assume he won the argument).
Aren’t both of my mistakes are on really tangential points? It doesn’t undermine my argument if CCW commit crime if I can provide evidence that they commit no more crime than the general population (and the evidence is that they commit less). It doesn’t undermine the notion that an armed populace might one day dissuade invasion even if I can’t prove that someone once contemplated it but was dissuaded by our armed populace. Nitpicking these things borders on pettifoggery.
Constantly digging up shit that someone admitted they got wrong is not just poor form it shows a weakness in their argument (and probably their character).
My main argument this entire debate can be boiled down to:
AWB is stupid, you are stupid or ignorant (or both) if you support it, we already tried it for 10 years and it didn’t achieve diddly squat. All it does is rile up gun owners and undermine efforts at getting anything done. If you could prove to me that an AWB would prevent some percentage of future Newtowns, I would remove the pistol grips on my rifles tomorrow, but it won’t make a difference.
There are 300 million guns in private hands, we are never going to confiscate them all. We have to expend our energy on making sure that they remain in the hands of law abiding citizens and reducing leakage into criminal hands. And yes that means enforcing gun laws rather than having the Milwaukee Police Chief tell us that “We don’t chase paper, we chase armed criminals” when we ask him why we don’t go after the felons that tried to buy guns but failed the background check.
Licensing and registration is a far more effective means of achieving lower gun murders than an AWB and is at least as likely to be passed as an AWB. You can make a MUCH better principled argument for L&R than an AWB.
The gun grabbers had an opportunity for some real gun reform in the immediate aftermath of Newtown but the focus on an AWB killed any momentum for gun control.
The second amendment gives a right to private gun ownership.
Elvis is a poopyhead.
I am open minded on all but the last point.
Everyone should be mindful of the fact that Damuri Ajashi’s evidence re: CCW safety was an write up of Texas data by some guy on the internet. That’s it.
His other evidence consists of quotes from a lawyer in LA and from Bill Bennett. He considers this evidence.
Just so we’re all clear on what’s being asserted.