Will this election also be decided by the perverse American fetish for GUNS?

No biggie.

And for two hundred years things went swimmingly.

Admittedly nowadays we let a hostile foreign government install a puppet president, which ain’t good, but it ain’t like the state-sourced senators and congressfolk and such are working against him with any reliability. Hmm, I wonder if you could make an argument that semi-decentralized government made us more vulnerable? Certainly the state-based electoral college was a factor in his implantation.

Sounds like you’re claiming that the explicit intention of the vaunted (and ignored) ‘militias’ was to aid the states in rising up against Washington. I find that implausible, to put it mildly. (Put frankly, that sounds batshit insane.)

They absolutely were lethal. Automatics just increase chances of hitting the target and reducing reload time and sometimes at the expense of firepower. This is why there was such an uproar about the change to 5.56 M16s during the Vietnam era from the M14 7.62 semi automatic. A powerful and reliable weapon, more accurate and easy to maintain. Some had thought the tide of war may have been different if they had been used to counter the sloppy inaccurate AK47 (saving grace was that AK-47 was a reliable weapon).

Personally if I absolutely must be shot, I’d prefer. 5.56mm. more of a chance of survival. 7.62mm, not so much.

Some of that is not true. The 8mm used in the Mauser had a slight edge on the 30-06 used in the M-1, but the 30-06 is a bit more powerful than the 7.62x54 used in the Mosin and much more powerful than the 6.5 or 7.6 Carcano. The clip in the Garand was for the most part unique as it stayed in the receiver when loaded and popped out when empty.

Most of the rest of your post is better than 90% of what I see on forums.

The word silencer is a noun and legal term used by the feds to identify a firearm suppressor, The other word they use is muffler.

That absolutely was the intention. Of course national defense as well.

I am sorry I will not respond to the rest of what you said because it is all vitriolic hyperbole. It is obviously incorrect. This incumbent won because the electoral college which prevents large population centers from dictating their choices for the rest, worked as intended. No conspiracy. Many just do not like the choice…that is fair to say.

I think his point about alcohol and slaves is that we amended the rules about owning them, so we could totally amend the rules about owning guns too. Like, any day now. Waaaait for it…

Personally the more interesting thing about the alcohol situation is that we did ban it, constitutionally, and the reason we unbanned it had nothing whatsoever to do with anything like “I cannot rescind or eliminate someone elses rights or property because I do not like some of the effects”. Because we can TOTALLY rescind or eliminate someone else’s rights or property because of their effects. That is a thing that can happen. And does happen. Constantly. Like, literally all the time. To say otherwise is absurd.

Oh, and people can totally own other people, in places where that’s no illegal. It was actually a big thing in the US for quite a while.

Bullshit. Cite? From someplace reputable, preferably. Someplace a non-partisan would consider reputable, that is.

National defense mostly, I gather, what with the whole militia thing being their aversion to a standing army due to that tiff with England they’d had.

Seriously, the members of the new government did not make rules with the explicit intent of getting themselves shot. That’s patently idiotic.

You considered that to be vitriolic hyperbole? Stop being such a snowflake and grow some ovaries. Or rather let’s all just state that we recognize that that was your quivering dodge away from stuff you couldn’t possibly begin to refute.

And your assertion that the electoral college was intended to prevent population centers from dominating just proves how much of a delusional fantasyland you’re living in. It’s well-documented fact that at the time nobody gave a flying fart about rural/urban, because there barely was “urban” back then. They were all about maintaining state sovereignty, which has completely vanished now but was still fresh in their memories. And of course the electoral college specifically was about keeping the nimrod shitheads who elected Trump from having any say at all; there being a popular vote was not part of the plan at all. The idea was that the common blue-collar dude was a fucking idiot who didn’t know what was good for them, so their state leaders would pick their smartest men to decide on the federal leader without consulting the rubes at all.

But you don’t know that because truth and facts are hostile to your belief system.

That last statement really projects your insecurities. I will not apologize that my argument is sound and backed by evidence. I did not Dodge anything except your obnoxious and childish insinuation that a foreign power planted our President. Grow up. As for the Electoral College, it was about population centers steering the vote, arguing urban and rural is only semantics. You can go look at Wikipedia whose slightly left of center slant unless you want to bitch like a high school teacher about Wikipedia not being a reliable source. I am not spoon feeding common knowledge to you, so so your own work. I’ll even give you the exact URL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. Please note how often it mentions and alludes to arming civilians, protection from tyranny as well as using armed civilian militias to form state armies as well as using said civilians in national defense. Please note the Federalist and Anti Federalist stances on the subject. Who am I kidding you are a leftard. You won’t read the whole article to get the point. You will cherry pick a point and break it down needlessly to justify your position on the matter instead of actually reading it for what it is. Much like you seem to adore doing reading my posts. You are the one dodging points and it is patently pathetic because you are lying to yourself and arguing for the sake of argument with no substance. I tried to be civil, you became obnoxious. Key point to remember. THE BILL OF RIGHTS are those for the individual, so don’t even try that shit show argument that the Second Amendment was for a Federal Armed forces. That is outlined elsewhere.

Can happen. Yes, Constitutionally legal, No. If you want to shred and destroy this document piece by piece you don’t belong in the United States. If you adapt and get better reading comprehension maybe you can see that I was speaking presently about slavery, not past tense. Keep dreaming about your firearm free United States. It will never happen. Ever. To say otherwise is absurd and not based in reality. If you actually think it could happen you are living in a fantasy. You cannot equate the right to essentially protect the document itself and your personal protection and sovereignty with slavery and alcohol, without the Second Amendment you cannot have the others and they will be slowly stripped away. I bet you really like that moron Beto O Rourke don’t you? He has the same pipe dream.

May I suggest you learn some of the history of the adoption of, and the resistance to the adoption of, repeating firearms?
Start here C&Rsenal, 'cause it’s got nothing to do with ‘lethality’.

CMC fnord!

Lol, this is some “We must suppoht the Cause, gentlemen!” level reasoning.

Man, this thing is the second amendment and you’re acting like it’s fundamental to the Western experience. It’s not. It’s really not.

“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.”

How about this - since the Constitution repeatedly mentions “militias”… as does the 2nd… I’m fine with the “people” who make up these militias having guns, but them only. That’s how I read this amendment, anyway. Deal?

Sorry, all three items have similarities, the most obvious being they are all of immense social and economic consequence. The 2nd most obvious thing is that these are/were products given to the private market to profit of off… yet, here they are, in the Constitution, with their proponents, to a T, demanding the right of being unregulated (3rd similarity- hell, the Slavers broke away from the country, remember?)

Alcohol and guns also share a similarity in that both were afterthoughts to the main document (which ought to give you pause as to the fundamental nature of Black Slavery to the American system of even these pre-cotton age times… but I digress), their rights given… or taken away… by amendments. As was slavery, so that’s another 3-way similarity (the 4th).

I can probably come up with more…

… all issues which vexed this country for decades
… all are issues which have a moral and economic component
… all are products to which the supporters argued they had a “right” to

Aren’t you supposed to be insulting people outside the Pit again so you can whine some more?

What? When was I insulting people outside the pit?

I have to point out that the Latin word “militia” is already a plural noun, as constructed from militus: armed person, soldier. I’m unaware of any document contemporary with the Second Amendment that uses the word “militias”, which would have been an incredibly illiterate construction.

I would also point out that repeated court decisions and legal commentaries on the American Bill of Rights have held that the amendments did not grant or bestow their provisions as privileges*****; that what formally stating something was a right accomplished was, to borrow a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, “secure” that right against potential efforts by the federal government to ignore or interpret it into impotence.

(And to think that Alexander Hamilton tried to argue that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary or worse because the federal government simply couldn’t infringe on peoples’ rights, because it would have no authority not explicitly granted it! We’ve seen how that worked out…)

What the Second Amendment did was to deny that some interpretation of the Constitution’s granting the federal government co-authority with the states over organizing and mustering the militia could be used to leverage a disarming of the populace.

*****I don’t think many people today would try to argue that before the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, African-Americans actually did not possess any inherent human rights, and that therefore antebellum slavery was not morally or ethically wrong.

On the contrary; in the present era the Second Amendment is mainly a tool for the elimination of the rest of the Amendments. It protects nothing; but people are encouraged to cling to their guns like they are actually some use, while everything else is stripped away,

It’s not a coincidence that the authoritarian Republicans are the ones so gung-ho for the Second Amendment and guns. They know perfectly well that guns are worthless as a defense, but wonderful for terrorizing and killing the innocent. Guns won’t protect anyone from a tyrannical government, but they are great for right wing terrorists and death squads.

But the left can buy guns too and protect themselves from those terrorists and death squads. That’s the beauty of it.

So I need a semi-automatic magazine firearm per the second amendment.

Why does the amendment not grant me the right to have a newer weapon like the qn-202? (and don’t dodge the question with “no one would sell this to civilians”. Someone would if it were legal but these missiles contain an explosive warhead*).

They have a reported 2 kilometer range and target-lock on. This gives them substantially more utility against modern threats. At only a few hundred grams of explosives each, they are still a fairly precision and targeted weapon.

It just seems like there is a spectrum. Visualizing it like a number line, it’s something like [muskets…cannon…bolt action rifles…semi-auto rifles…machine guns…dumb missiles…smart missiles…armed ground vehicles…the big stuff]

It seems rather arbitrary for the setting to be “semi-auto rifles” and it’s against the amendment to not push it back more to the left.

Obviously, a new law could be passed, in theory, that re-allowed machine guns* as part our of “second amendment” rights.

*they are a destructive device and in some states civilians can never have them.
*all machineguns made after 1986 are straight illegal and in some states, they are always illegal. Note that if a state can make something 100% illegal it’s not a Constitutional right.

Not until that ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court.

States try that shit on all the time and are constantly being overturned by the Supreme Court.

No, because guns don’t protect anyone. If guns protected people then the right would oppose them.

Do you really think this way?