Without Fail: Loaded Six String: Most concealed carriers do not live in constant fear of having to defend themselves from violence, but like to be prepared in case the need were to arise. I carry a Leatherman multi-tool with me on a daily basis for that exact same line of reasoning. I still haven't had to use that damn can opener yet, but the blade, pliers, and screwdrivers have been useful on many occasions where I otherwise would not have known beforehand that I would have use of them.

How often have you used the concealed gun?

I'm 50 years old and travel pretty extensively. I have NEVER had a reason to use a concealed weapon.
The few times that I might have needed one, there wouldn't have been time to draw safely.

Do you carry a defibrillator everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a first aid kit everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a hammer everywhere you go? That would be more useful.

There are literally MILLIONS of things that are more useful to carry than a gun.
Things that are easier, safer and more likely to save a life.
But you choose to carry the one thing whose sole purpose is killing humans.

You have the right to carry a gun. Don't pretend that it is logical to do so.

Never. I don't have a pistol yet. I do however carry a switchblade with me, also a deadly weapon in close ranges though it can be used to disable without killing someone. I agree a first aid kit would be useful, if it were the size of a pistol and could be carried as easily. The hammer is debatable as a situation arising which it would be useful would be about as likely as a self defense situation, in which case the hammer might suffice.

Your extensive history of travel without the need (or ability) to use a firearm in a self defense situation is anecdotal. Good for you for still being alive (not enough information to infer that you were entirely unharmed through all incidents). Bringing up that a firearm's sole purpose is to kill is fallacious because you are attributing intent to an inanimate object. Rather than arguing the logic of carrying a weapon, it should be argued as to whether it is practical. Physically it is, depending on the size of the weapon. From a cost perspective it can be argued as being just as practical as a form of insurance. X amount paid up front, continuing payments in the form of ammunition.

Honestly, if phasers on a stun setting could be implanted in a person's fingertips for the same price as a pistol, there would likely be a dramatic drop in the number of people who carry pistols, and firearms would then be largely used for recreation by the general public. However, that's just a nice fantasy, so we'll have to stick with pistols for now.

Is it logical to carry a watch at all times? How often do you need to know exactly what time it is down to the minute, while not being within close proximity to a clock, someone who has a watch, or your cell phone which has a clock function? Logical, no. Practical, yes.

Without Fail: Loaded Six String: Most concealed carriers do not live in constant fear of having to defend themselves from violence, but like to be prepared in case the need were to arise. I carry a Leatherman multi-tool with me on a daily basis for that exact same line of reasoning. I still haven't had to use that damn can opener yet, but the blade, pliers, and screwdrivers have been useful on many occasions where I otherwise would not have known beforehand that I would have use of them.

How often have you used the concealed gun?

I'm 50 years old and travel pretty extensively. I have NEVER had a reason to use a concealed weapon.
The few times that I might have needed one, there wouldn't have been time to draw safely.

Do you carry a defibrillator everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a first aid kit everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a hammer everywhere you go? That would be more useful.

There are literally MILLIONS of things that are more useful to carry than a gun.
Things that are easier, safer and more likely to save a life.
But you choose to carry the one thing whose sole purpose is killing humans.

You have the right to carry a gun. Don't pretend that it is logical to do so.

You can now find defibrillators on airlines and in many public buildings.
Many people do carry first aid kits. I drive around with one in the car and keep another one in my bug out bag. Never needed it, but it's a bad idea to ride without one.
A hammer can be substituted (for non construction purposes) with many other hard things. I've often used the butt of a K-bar knife.

A lot of people carry weapons simply because the threat of physical violence isnt something that will wait while you run to your car or desk.
Just because you don't understand that doesn't mean it's not sensible to others. Not everyone has the same concerns or experiences.

spif: Dear morons. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from the government.

Why is it that the people who try to make this point always come off as the last people you want having guns

Smeggy Smurf: RedPhoenix122: Smeggy Smurf: Either I'm being censored or Fark is eating my comments.

We don't need more laws for the criminals to ignore. We need to enforce the ones we already have.

We need to bring back old-fashioned street fights, like in the Beat It music video.

Dance off to the death

Without Fail: Loaded Six String: Most concealed carriers do not live in constant fear of having to defend themselves from violence, but like to be prepared in case the need were to arise. I carry a Leatherman multi-tool with me on a daily basis for that exact same line of reasoning. I still haven't had to use that damn can opener yet, but the blade, pliers, and screwdrivers have been useful on many occasions where I otherwise would not have known beforehand that I would have use of them.

How often have you used the concealed gun?

I'm 50 years old and travel pretty extensively. I have NEVER had a reason to use a concealed weapon.
The few times that I might have needed one, there wouldn't have been time to draw safely.

Do you carry a defibrillator everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a first aid kit everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a hammer everywhere you go? That would be more useful.

There are literally MILLIONS of things that are more useful to carry than a gun.
Things that are easier, safer and more likely to save a life.
But you choose to carry the one thing whose sole purpose is killing humans.

You have the right to carry a gun. Don't pretend that it is logical to do so.



Myself, once. My grandmother, twice that I know of. The last was when she was 72, walking on a cane, and drove out three boys who were burglarizing her home.

Do you think my grandmother could have defended her self from three burglars with a hammer? Or, as one person once suggested to me in a similar thread, with judo?

If carrying a firearm saves even *one* life, isn't it worth it? (see what I did there)

rohar: Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution it makes no difference.

Go edit Wikipedia and get off my bar stool.

rohar: Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

CPennypacker: spif: Dear morons. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from the government.

Why is it that the people who try to make this point always come off as the last people you want having guns

And why is it that the people who think we need those guns to protect themselves from the government are always the ones who think it's OK that we spend $711 billion dollars annually on the military?

Jesus. Any person with a background in either English or History can see from readily available papers that codified in US law is a right of the people to own weapons.

This means simply that if you wish to NOT have that right, the fight is rather uphill, because you have to amend the Constitution in order to do it. If it is the right thing to do, we can at least be intellectually honest with what has to be done.

Fully automatic firearm ownership is unnecessary and shouldn't be too difficult to outlaw; in fact, normal ownership of such weapons is already so curtailed by regulations and licensure requirements as to render such a ban probably moot.

Most of the psychos who want to deliberately kill strangers in large numbers tend to also build bombs but not detonate them (Columbine, Aurora), instead becoming distracted from their rampage by the desire to murder people individually. Ironically, this actually slows down their rate of killing, and we should all be very glad that they did not simply detonate a bomb in a crowded place and get away with it. Since they instead killed with firearms, they lingered at the scene of the crime and were stopped or confronted by police.

So, the question is: IF these crazies, who are clearly highly motivated to kill utter strangers had instead opted to detonate bombs or incendiaries, where would we be? I'm not saying that we should hand them a machine gun, but a semiauto is not a machine gun.
If a particular firearm is useless for personal defense in every situation (like a browning machine gun is), then I'm fine with a ban on it.
As far as a general gun ban, as I am not a musclebound freak capable of defending myself against every member of society with my bare hands, I'll resist any outright arms ban until such point as people stop murdering one another and stealing their things.

redmid17: babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?

Nuclear weapons are ordnance and not subject to the 2nd amendment.

I see this a lot on fark. I don't know that I've ever been referred to the decision that clarified this. You've always seemed like a sane-ish individual, do you happen to know something about the decision, like it's name or date, that might help me find it?

magusdevil: rohar: Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

Without Fail: Do you carry a defibrillator everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a first aid kit everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a hammer everywhere you go? That would be more useful.

Defib: No, they're way too expensive. Bigger than my gun. Most areas like malls have them already
First aid kit: Again, generally one somewhere in the building, but I have one in my car & home
Hammer: Carry a multitool, generally speaking. More useful than a hammer and won't get cops quite as upset as carrying a hammer randomly can be seen as carrying a weapon anyways.

Also carry a gun, because they're a bit harder to come by than the other things you listed.

But you choose to carry the one thing whose sole purpose is killing humans.

Throwing bits of metal quickly and accurately, actually. It's also good against feral dogs, as a warning/emergency signal, etc...

Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

If regulated meant in working order what was the point of the word "well" in front of it?

Loaded Six String: 1) Why can't I own a nuclear bomb/ rpg/ etc? Well, first of the amendment is just for arms which are defined as being able to be carried and used by a single person. Nuclear bombs, even suitcase bombs, are defined as WMDs, ordnance, what have you, but not arms. RPGs if they have an explosive warhead are defined as destructive devices. Destructive devices are highly regulated, highly cost prohibitive when legal for ownership, and not really in demand except when brought up by someone being snarky in a gun control discussion.

So, any weapon can be tightly regulated as long as we change the classification?

Firethorn: Without Fail: Do you carry a defibrillator everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a first aid kit everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a hammer everywhere you go? That would be more useful.

Defib: No, they're way too expensive. Bigger than my gun. Most areas like malls have them already
First aid kit: Again, generally one somewhere in the building, but I have one in my car & home
Hammer: Carry a multitool, generally speaking. More useful than a hammer and won't get cops quite as upset as carrying a hammer randomly can be seen as carrying a weapon anyways.

Also carry a gun, because they're a bit harder to come by than the other things you listed.

But you choose to carry the one thing whose sole purpose is killing humans.

Throwing bits of metal quickly and accurately, actually. It's also good against feral dogs, as a warning/emergency signal, etc...



Also you can use it to open beer cans and turn off light switches

BeesNuts: redmid17: babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?

Nuclear weapons are ordnance and not subject to the 2nd amendment.

I see this a lot on fark. I don't know that I've ever been referred to the decision that clarified this. You've always seemed like a sane-ish individual, do you happen to know something about the decision, like it's name or date, that might help me find it?

According to Scalia the jury is still out on nukes as long as you can "hand-carry" them: Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

Yeah, the Constitution was documenting an expectation of quality, not defining any kind of regulatory scope.

magusdevil: Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

If regulated meant in working order what was the point of the word "well" in front of it?

The firearms they (the people) had to be in working order. There was an obligation to keep them functional and have the knowledge to use them, not a mandate.

Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

Uh, no.

The term "regulate" is used in a number of fairly important phrases in the Constitution. Off the top of my head, article I section 8 comes to mind as well. It did not mean to limit or throttle as is modern interpretation. It did not mean anything of "working order", that's just completely wrong.

The earliest American dictionary was published just before 1800. It's not absolutely authoritative as it was published 30 years after the Constitution was written, but it's the closest published definition we have. It asserts that to regulate is to make normal, to create parity. Clocks were called regulators as they were synchronized or put in parity with each other. To regulate interstate commerce would mean to create a system whereby no one state had monopoly to the detriment of other states creating an inequity.

If you change the definition of regulate from the current understanding back to the definition of the time, you see quite clearly how the supreme court came to their recent decision. There was an inequity among the people, it was made as equal as possible under the law.

GameSprocket: Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

Yeah, the Constitution was documenting an expectation of quality, not defining any kind of regulatory scope.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.

GameSprocket: Loaded Six String: 1) Why can't I own a nuclear bomb/ rpg/ etc? Well, first of the amendment is just for arms which are defined as being able to be carried and used by a single person. Nuclear bombs, even suitcase bombs, are defined as WMDs, ordnance, what have you, but not arms. RPGs if they have an explosive warhead are defined as destructive devices. Destructive devices are highly regulated, highly cost prohibitive when legal for ownership, and not really in demand except when brought up by someone being snarky in a gun control discussion.

So, any weapon can be tightly regulated as long as we change the classification?

An attempt to do so was already tried with the AWB of the 90's. The classifacation of an assault weapon was determined by what features the weapon had ( pistol grip, bayonet mount, folding stock, nothing about automatic fire). To paraphrase a representative of a weapons manufacturer "you legislated based on cosmetic features, so you got cosmetic changes." The AWB did nothing appreciable to reduce violent crime, and would not pass the strict scrutiny needed today due to legal precedent. So no, it doesn't quite work that way.

Changing the classification of AR-15s or semi-automatic pistols or revolvers to death machines in an attempt to highly regulate them would not change the fact that they are in common useage for lawful purposes, and as such would fail scrutiny.

magusdevil: BeesNuts: redmid17: babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?

Nuclear weapons are ordnance and not subject to the 2nd amendment.

I see this a lot on fark. I don't know that I've ever been referred to the decision that clarified this. You've always seemed like a sane-ish individual, do you happen to know something about the decision, like it's name or date, that might help me find it?

According to Scalia the jury is still out on nukes as long as you can "hand-carry" them: Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

Most likely, Davy Crocketts, RPGs, and Stinger missiles would be officially designated as "destructive devices" which are for the most part not lawful to own without strict government scrutiny and having to get a tax stamp ($$$).

LasersHurt: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.

So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.

I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.

magusdevil: LasersHurt: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.

So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.

I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.

So no marines or sailors?

rohar: Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

Uh, no.

The term "regulate" is used in a number of fairly important phrases in the Constitution. Off the top of my head, article I section 8 comes to mind as well. It did not mean to limit or throttle as is modern interpretation. It did not mean anything of "working order", that's just completely wrong.

The earliest American dictionary was published just before 1800. It's not absolutely authoritative as it was published 30 years after the Constitution was written, but it's the closest published definition we have. It asserts that to regulate is to make normal, to create parity. Clocks were called regulators as they were synchronized or put in parity with each other. To regulate interstate commerce would mean to create a system whereby no one state had monopoly to the detriment of other states creating an inequity.

If you change the definition of regulate from the current understanding back to the definition of the time, you see quite clearly how the supreme court came to their recent decision. There was an inequity among the people, it was made as equal as possible under the law.

Then given that definition, a regulated militia would be a militia with the same type of weaponry as a neighboring state's militia, yes? Which would require that the same arms be available to all the people of the United States, making bans or restrictions necessarily a federal matter which would apply to all states individually. Doesn't make much of a difference from my definition with the exception that state and local governments are restricted from enacting their own rules on the availability of certain firearms or firearms in general. I apologize if I misinterpreted that.

magusdevil: LasersHurt: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.

So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.

I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.

The problem with that is that it would remove the ability of the elderly or the infirm to own weapons for personal defense, carried or in the home. Granted, that's only in regards to a well regulated militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed comes back into play. Unless the elderly or the infirm were not included in "the people" that doesn't work either. Training and qualifying is a good idea, but to mandate it then creates a class of people who would be without this right who previously had no reason to be denied.

As a side note, there needs to be more strict qualifying requirements for police. Yes it is anecdotal, but I've heard too many tales of officers who only qualify with their sidearm once a year because that's all that is required of them. As police, it is more important for them to shoot accurately and it is very telling when someone compares the number of shots fired to shots which hit the intended target in police shooting vs. self defense shooting. The police come up woefully short compared to the average concealed carrier, and I'm sure that's at least partly due to the amount of legal immunity afforded to our police.

magusdevil: LasersHurt: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.

So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.

I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.

Define non-hunting weapons? I can use the same M1a rifle for target shooting as I do for hunting, if needed. Ditto for an AR-15, AKM, etc. It's really a matter of what all you use it for.

You also leave out valid self defense weapons with that definition, such as revolvers, handguns, pistol-carbines, etc.

It's a lot like the 'assault weapons ban' which just banned scary looking rifles. Completely pointless.

babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?

Because your mother won't raise your allowance or let you keep them in the basement.

The_Sponge: Funbags: Someone explain why the gun-nuts and/or NRA oppose severely restrictive gun control? Anyone who's terrified about Fartbama, communism/fascism, brown people, Reptilians, and gun control laws probably already owns dozens (if not hundreds) of guns by now, don't they?

Don't they see the inherent advantage of being able to kill whatever people they decide need to be killed, and not have to worry about return fire?

We'd all be a lot safer if they'd focus their efforts on making sure the American public has unlimited access to armor-piercing ammunition, grenades, and RPGs.


You're either very ignorant or a troll.

Isn't the basis for the 2nd amendment that if necessarily, a violent overthrow of the government can be accomplished? In such a scenario, who are you gun owners going to be shooting at? Cops. National guardsmen. Armored vehicles. Hardened structures.

magusdevil: Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.

Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

If regulated meant in working order what was the point of the word "well" in front of it?

The purpose clause of the second amendment reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

This clause exists not for the purpose of codification, but as a statement of rationale for the following meat of the amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.

So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:


You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

Loaded Six String: If you change the definition of regulate from the current understanding back to the definition of the time, you see quite clearly how the supreme court came to their recent decision. There was an inequity among the people, it was made as equal as possible under the law.

Then given that definition, a regulated militia would be a militia with the same type of weaponry as a neighboring state's militia, yes? Which would require that the same arms be available to all the people of the United States, making bans or restrictions necessarily a federal matter which would apply to all states individually. Doesn't make much of a difference from my definition with the exception that state and local governments are restricted from enacting their own rules on the availability of certain firearms or firearms in general. I apologize if I misinterpreted that.

Sorry, my intention wasn't to take a pro or anti gun control law stance. Rather, to provide some understanding of the amendment. If the definition of regulate is taken in context, we're no longer talking about regulation in many of these cases, but necessary and unnecessary federal restriction.

I know it seems semantic (we're talking the definitions of words so I guess it's gonna be), but then we have to look elsewhere in the Constitution to find the federal government's power to restrict necessary or not.

Funbags: The_Sponge: Funbags: Someone explain why the gun-nuts and/or NRA oppose severely restrictive gun control? Anyone who's terrified about Fartbama, communism/fascism, brown people, Reptilians, and gun control laws probably already owns dozens (if not hundreds) of guns by now, don't they?

Don't they see the inherent advantage of being able to kill whatever people they decide need to be killed, and not have to worry about return fire?

We'd all be a lot safer if they'd focus their efforts on making sure the American public has unlimited access to armor-piercing ammunition, grenades, and RPGs.


You're either very ignorant or a troll.

Isn't the basis for the 2nd amendment that if necessarily, a violent overthrow of the government can be accomplished? In such a scenario, who are you gun owners going to be shooting at? Cops. National guardsmen. Armored vehicles. Hardened structures.

Infantry with body armor which can be pierced by hunting rifle rounds. Armored vehicles which can be disable through constructed explosives, rather than destructive devices purchased and registered in a database. The hardened structures aren't as much of a target in an armed rebellion/ insurgency. The priorities would be utilities, supply depots/routes, and drawing a stalemate on the capitol. A serious rebellion wouldn't be quelled without the complete destabilization of the functions of government. So no, 2nd amendment doesn't apply to armor piercing ammunition (full metal jacket hunting rounds would suffice), grenades are unnecessary or replaceable, same with RPGs.

Summoner101: With consideration to the recent shootings, now is not the time to talk about gun control.

With a presidential election is coming up now is exactly the time to talk about "Gun Control". It worked really well for Democrats the last time. Come on, talk, loud and often. It will really get out the vote.

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.

Convoluted in what way? Had the prefatory clause read "In order to ensure that much ass may be kicked, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the amendment would not change in any meaningful way. The right of the people shall not be infringed, regardless of the reason given for that right to be protected constitutionally.

magusdevil: redmid17: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

Nuclear weapons don't fall under the historical precedent for individual ownership that firearms do.

So a .50 cal fully automatic belt fed vehicle mounted machine gun then?

Fine by me. But tell me, where you live do you have to lock it up in a safe when you are not actually sitting in it? And I'm really curious about what kind of trigger lock works on it, could you post a picture?

Loaded Six String: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.

Convoluted in what way? Had the prefatory clause read "In order to ensure that much ass may be kicked, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the amendment would not change in any meaningful way. The right of the people shall not be infringed, regardless of the reason given for that right to be protected constitutionally.

This is honestly a silly argument over nothing. The bigger question is: Does the bill of rights grant the federal government any powers?

I'd suggest it does not, every decision the supreme court has ever made on the bill of rights proves as much. To that end, the argument over regulation, in the 2nd amendment, is silly.

dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

The Constitution was also written when there was no such thing as the internet (pre-Gore), so with this person's "logic" that mean freedom of speech shouldn't apply to the internet

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

So? Maybe they need to be even more regulated?

Is it legal guns that are used in the overwhelming % of crime or are they illegally acquired weapons?

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

Its also the only right that kills people every day.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment has actually killed anyone. Legally owned firearms do indeed kill people, but the vast, vast majority of gun homicides are illegally obtained and being illegally used (even prior to the homicide).

And yet the NRA opposes requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns... that's weird.

The NRA doesn't oppose anyone reporting a lost or stolen gun, we oppose putting someone in prison because they were out of town for a month and didn't know their home had been broken into and their guns stolen. Try actually reading some of the laws the Brady Bunch promotes and imagine them being enforced by Bloomberg.

Let us imagine that somehow Holmes couldn't spend the thousands of dollars he did on guns and ammo and tactical gear. Some gun-law thwarted his "shoot fantasy"


Would that have somehow made him LESS sociopathic? Less violent?


Instead of leaving the exit propped open....he BLOCKS the exit somehow. Instead of returning through the front dressed and armed all "terminator" style he shows up with gallon cans of gasoline and makeshift fuses.....


....instead of 12 dead and 58 injured,


we now have a HUNDRED dead and HUNDREDS injured.


Same with Cho at Virginia Tech. The most diabolical thing Cho did on his rampage was NOT his selecting a Glock 9mm...it was how he chained shut the corridor doors as he passed from hall to hall. Again,imagine Cho with NO gun but containers of gas or kerosene...etc. Multiple fires in all the building wings and sealed exits. He would have quadrupled his body count easily.

Every victim who died at Virginia tech had at least THREE gunshot wounds. Many survived with 3-4 bullet wounds. He wasted his time with a gun. Period.


Just ask Timothy McVeigh.

craigdamage: Let us imagine that somehow Holmes couldn't spend the thousands of dollars he did on guns and ammo and tactical gear. Some gun-law thwarted his "shoot fantasy"


Would that have somehow made him LESS sociopathic? Less violent?


Instead of leaving the exit propped open....he BLOCKS the exit somehow. Instead of returning through the front dressed and armed all "terminator" style he shows up with gallon cans of gasoline and makeshift fuses.....


....instead of 12 dead and 58 injured,


we now have a HUNDRED dead and HUNDREDS injured.


Same with Cho at Virginia Tech. The most diabolical thing Cho did on his rampage was NOT his selecting a Glock 9mm...it was how he chained shut the corridor doors as he passed from hall to hall. Again,imagine Cho with NO gun but containers of gas or kerosene...etc. Multiple fires in all the building wings and sealed exits. He would have quadrupled his body count easily.

Every victim who died at Virginia tech had at least THREE gunshot wounds. Many survived with 3-4 bullet wounds. He wasted his time with a gun. Period.


Just ask Timothy McVeigh.

Wait, so your point is it could have been more deadly if he didn't have access to semi-automatic firepower with 100 drum magazines? Do you wear a helmet all the time by chance?

GAT_00: The NYT promotes their own agenda, nothing else.

Couple days ago when most every news site had Curiosity and the Olympic wins as top stories, NYTimes had them as 5th-6th place, based on position and font size. No photo either.

If someone threw a rock somewhere in the West Bank, it would have been the top story.

rohar: Loaded Six String: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.

Convoluted in what way? Had the prefatory clause read "In order to ensure that much ass may be kicked, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the amendment would not change in any meaningful way. The right of the people shall not be infringed, regardless of the reason given for that right to be protected constitutionally.

This is honestly a silly argument over nothing. The bigger question is: Does the bill of rights grant the federal government any powers?

I'd suggest it does not, every decision the supreme court has ever made on the bill of rights proves as much. To that end, the argument over regulation, in the 2nd amendment, is silly.

I tend to agree. The Bill of Rights does not grant the federal government powers. It is a list of rights which no governing body in the nation can restrict or absolve without going through the necessary amendment process.

I never understood "gun porn" or "food porn" or "car porn." I just want to see "porn porn."

Am I the only one who notices that the pro and anti gun forces can gin up statistics that completely contradict each other, starting from the same statistical database? That should tell you something about statistics .

Attention dumbasses: there are too many guns everywhere by now, it doesn't matter what laws you care to enact.

jso2897 Am I the only one who notices believes that the pro and anti gun forces can gin up statistics that completely contradict each other, starting from the same statistical database? That should tell you something about statistics .


Yes. Yes you are.