If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion   (americanthinker.com) divider line 69
    More: Obvious, Framers of the Constitution, second amendment, due process clause, target shooting, Constitution of the United States, importance, U.S. Supreme Court, faiths  
•       •       •

1724 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-03 08:30:22 AM
21 votes:
True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads
2012-12-03 08:52:10 AM
14 votes:

Lansydyr: [thismodernworld.com image 720x672]
/oblig


Well...they're right, in a way. It's true: guns don't kill people, any more than chainsaws, lathes, forklifts, or any other piece of powered equipment kills people. A gun is just a machine. In fact, a machine gun has a lot in common with a lathe.

But the people...Jesus Loving Christ, the people...

What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

Your often-stated belief that Armageddon will happen in your lifetime. Your fervent endorsement of literally unhinged candidates like Palin, Santorum, Rand Paul, and Bachmann. Your honest acceptance of the idea that Barack Obama is the WORST. PRESIDENT. EVAR. Your total disregard for the environment. Your utter lack of understanding of basic financial principles. The way you think you can cut taxes, increase military spending, AND balance the budget - while fighting two wars. Your constant harping on how bad it is that teachers can't lead classroom prayers and Creationism isn't taught in school, while simultaneously complaining that Islam is beginning to pervade government and we're secretly trending towards sharia law. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SHARIA IS.

And this isn't about you being 'conservative', either. Reagan was a conservative's conservative. I didn't like him, but I could work for him. George H. W. Bush was a conservative, and while I didn't agree with his fiscal policies I did and do respect the hell out of the man. He's everything a proud public servant should embody. I don't agree with all conservative policies, but I acknowledge there is underlying logic to many of them, and - pay attention, because this is important - I can work with them.

But you...you're ignorant, uneducated, absolutist, utterly unwilling to compromise, and apparently divorced from reality. And no...I don't want you to have a gun. If you honestly think Obama was born in Kenya, the Ryan Budget can work, and war with Iran is inevitable, you aren't safe to trust with a bb gun, much less an assault rifle.
2012-12-03 08:34:58 AM
8 votes:
thismodernworld.com
/oblig
2012-12-03 08:30:47 AM
8 votes:
The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion*

*Offer not valid to muslims 
2012-12-03 10:10:12 AM
4 votes:
Colonial era ammunition magazine........
farm3.static.flickr.com

Modern day ammunition magazine.......
blogs.courant.com

Approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com

Really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws..................
static.guim.co.uk

Really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
www.jihadwatch.org

Really, really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
timeopinions.files.wordpress.com

Really, really, really, really approves of stuff........but not really sure what or why.....but please sign that check at the bottom........you betcha!
2.bp.blogspot.com
2012-12-03 08:58:02 AM
4 votes:
Guys, they discussed all of this on paper. You don't have to speculate or bring up fossil firearms.

What they felt was important was to maintain a certain level of the ability to do violence at the grassroots level, to mitigate the imbalance of power that exists whenever you have a government.
Governments always have the capacity to exert physical force. The 2nd amendment is to preserve the people's right to use physical force if necessary, both for self defense and as an impediment for tyrannical rulers.

They have discussed this at great length and in a number of important books and papers. Instead of speculating about what they meant, you should read the documents they wrote to explain themselves.

/scholarship- it works, biatches.
2012-12-03 08:14:59 AM
4 votes:
I'm sure there's more of a point to that 225-year old "oldnewsisexciting.jpg" statement, but I'm sure as hell not clicking the article to find out what it might be.
2012-12-03 09:44:52 AM
3 votes:

Tyrone Slothrop: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Strange that no other amendment needed a "justification". Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting.


Regardless of whether it's strange or not, it doesn't say that the right is limited to those actively enrolled in an organize militia.

It's not all that strange, either:

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts near where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed... N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXVII (1784).

Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXIII (1784).

Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXXVI (1784).


The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . R.I. Const. art. I, § 20 (1842)

I bolded the non-limiting justification clauses.

I'm sure I could dig up other examples, but there are at least 4 examples of non-limiting justification clauses that are roughly contemporaneous to the Second Amendment (three predate it, one comes after) In fact, the Rhode Island freedom of the press looks to be basically cribbed directly from the Second Amendment.

No, it's not strange, and it doesn't
2012-12-03 08:54:39 AM
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-12-03 08:47:42 AM
3 votes:
The Founders also though a large standing army was a grave threat to liberty.
2012-12-03 08:22:00 AM
3 votes:
the right to practice religion and be free from government-sanctioned religion. the establishment cause cuts two ways, submitter.
2012-12-03 08:19:27 AM
3 votes:
Militia Clause.
2012-12-03 10:49:36 AM
2 votes:

dittybopper: hubiestubert: What is curious is that so many who support the 2nd Amendment seem so opposed to everyone enjoying the protection of the 1st.

That's a false dichotomy: Most of the staunch Second Amendment people I know value *ALL* of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they get *PISSED* because if you ignore the protection of one amendment (Usually the Second), then there is no reason to believe the others won't be ignored. Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.


It isn't a one for one issue. That is kind of the issue. It's not just about free speech, but about that laundry list that IS the First Amendment, not to mention pesky things like the 14th that some folks seem to forget. I am a strong proponent for the 1st, as well as the 2nd, and even the 5th and 14th.

The 2nd Amendment gives folks the means to secure the 1st. That means if the courts fail, or civil protections go belly up. The rights we have are nested protections, and what is interesting are the folks who chant the loudest for 2nd Amendment protections, are often chanting quite loudly to restrict the rights of their fellow citizens when they say, or do things that annoy them. Not just disagreeing in a loud and vociferous manner, but asking that our government restrict those rights, and therein lies the rub. Not the disagreement, but asking that our own government which should be outside the debate become involved.
2012-12-03 09:53:32 AM
2 votes:

sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem


For you newbs, if sprawl15 is against it, it's probably a good idea.
2012-12-03 09:43:06 AM
2 votes:
And that's why the Constitution could use a good rewriting to get rid of cruft like this. In the Framers' time, your personal firepower was on par with the government's, and such an amendment made sense. Now, the government greatly outweapons you, and your guns aren't going to be watering the tree of liberty with the blood of revolution anytime soon. Act up, and you'll get a big old dose of Ruby Ridge or Waco shoved up your ass. And if that fails, you'll get obliterated by a UAV-launched missile you never see coming. Owning guns is a fine, useful thing for hunting and protecting your home, but it's not any more useful to your day-to-day well-being than the right to own a car or a computer, now that it isn't possible for Joe Sixpack to pose a credible threat to the government. We don't enshrine the rights to own cars and computers with special amendments, so it isn't clear why gun owning, or soldier-quartering-in-homes amendments need to be up there with crucial stuff like free speech and jury trials.
2012-12-03 09:40:23 AM
2 votes:
reappropriate.co
2012-12-03 09:31:38 AM
2 votes:

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


Yes, because we should never talk about gun control after a recent tragedy involving guns. Which also means we will NEVER talk about gun control, since there's ALWAYS a recent tragedy involving guns.
2012-12-03 09:10:59 AM
2 votes:
craigrwhitney.com

/a little slow in places, but makes some interesting points
2012-12-03 09:04:30 AM
2 votes:
What caused this reversal of liberal dogma? Why is "gun control" now a dirty word and a guaranteed political loser?

Because they tried it, got smacked down, realized that it wasn't a winner, and stopped pushing it.

I mean, it was a stupid issue to be pushing in the first place, but in all fairness that describes every hot-button issue ever and it has nothing to do with why they stopped.

If the crazy right-wingers were less outright stupid, they'd maybe take a lesson from this and apply it to, say, the abortion issue. When something's been explicitly resolved by the courts and voters multiple time, it's maybe time to shelve it for a while.
2012-12-03 08:58:30 AM
2 votes:

dittybopper: whistleridge: What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

If you're worried about me, then the guns are irrelevant, because I have any number of things I can quickly and efficiently kill you with.

Failing that, I could just make a gun. It's not that hard: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made with tools and materials far inferior to what you can find at your local Home Depot. I could make a dandy single shot zip gun with some steel gas pipe, a few hardware doo-dads, some strike-anywhere matches, and maybe a chunk of wood for a stock, and that gun will kill you just as dead as the latest polymer-framed "Wonder Nine".


I can also make large bombs with common materials, so those should be perfectly legal too, right?
2012-12-03 08:57:52 AM
2 votes:

dittybopper: No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.


Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it true.
2012-12-03 08:56:56 AM
2 votes:
Guns are like abortions. If you don't want one . Don't get one.

/ Only one these was written into the Constitution. They other one was mined out of abstraction.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 08:54:11 AM
2 votes:

dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.


It explains exactly what they were trying to accomplish, so yes, it's a limitation.
2012-12-03 08:53:38 AM
2 votes:

bulldg4life: dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.


yep. my interpretation of that is that it requires membership into a group like police or national guard. a state sanctioned force.
2012-12-03 08:50:51 AM
2 votes:

whistleridge: The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.


There is a specific process to do that. It requires 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by the legislatures of 75% of the states. We've amended the Constitution 17 times since the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights were ratified.

The Constitution *IS* a living document, in the sense that it can be changed to suite modern times, but you can't just say "Oh, well, we know better, so we'll just ignore the parts we don't like". The founding fathers understood that times change, and they also understood that people sometimes panic and do stupid things for transient issues, so they made the Constitution changeable, but not *EASILY* changeable.

It's brilliant, actually: It's hard enough to change it that the latest panic about whatever can't be easily written into it, but for long term changes (like stopping slavery, giving women the right to vote, etc.), you can change it. I'd say the only real exception to the "latest panic" in history was the Volstead Act, and we all know what problems that caused.
2012-12-03 08:48:07 AM
2 votes:
If you love 1787 so much, why don't you marry it?
2012-12-03 08:45:01 AM
2 votes:
Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.
2012-12-03 08:42:22 AM
2 votes:

GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.


It's a justification, not a limitation.
2012-12-03 08:21:01 AM
2 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.


*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.
2012-12-03 02:30:56 PM
1 votes:

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.


Exactly.

My opinion is that the Dems won't give until the deadender in the Senate finally retire or die. Outside of Reid, the Democratic leadership in the Senate is the last bastion of the prohibitionist mentality left that has any power in the Federal gov't. They will not compromise (still pushing the failed AWB) and they pay no political price for their intransigence.

Want to finish off the Repubs? Start acting like true liberals and support liberal gun rights policies. Prohibition (AWB) is not a liberal position, it is a statist, authoritarian position.
2012-12-03 01:52:04 PM
1 votes:
I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.
2012-12-03 01:12:47 PM
1 votes:

ckccfa: I'm happy for many of you, and Imma let y'all finish, but I hope you realize how moot guns are becoming...

[img.photobucket.com image 850x637]

/31% of military aircraft are now various kinds of these


Yes...but you also realize that is a single-prop plane operating over a country with exactly zero air defense? Any WWII fighter could shoot it down in a heartbeat, as could any 50's-era SAM site. Hell...flack alone would be enough.

They're useful tools to be sure, but until and unless we can figure out a way to use them in an area where we don't have total air superiority, we shouldn't become too reliant on them.
2012-12-03 01:10:09 PM
1 votes:

verbaltoxin: verbaltoxin: Broad yes. Qualified? No.

Founding document? Yes, but the DOI is not law. It means little without proper context and qualification for this discussion, which we never get from pro-gun, NRA apologists. They use it to excuse their gun-hoarding, not explain why it's necessary or needful to a republic.

Agreed

Saying there will be a revolution sometime in the next 500 years is like a psychic saying there will be a natural disaster in the same timeframe. Sure it could prove correct, but it's meaningless, because anyone could get that prediction right. What relevance does it have to the discussion? So because the United States may have a revolution in the next 500 years means we should what? Let private citizens own RPGs today? That makes no sense whatsoever, based on this line of logic.

Agreed. But he DID qualify. Yeah, it's a Doomsday Prepper mindset, but it's still a qualification of sorts. I'm just saying.

Furthermore, his "history as a guide" statement is misleading. Point to previous revolutions and you'll see they have things in common, but more often turn out bad for citizens rather than good. France's revolution lead to Napoleon, a despot. Other, more contemporary revolutions have lead to situations like Iran. Egypt's revolution has lead to Muhammad Morsi, a member of the Islamic Brotherhood, claiming absolute power. Revolutions happen, but they're usually terrible. "Revolutions devour their children," is the famous quote I'm remembering here.

Yes and no. When revolutions don't get out of hand, they can be good things. The US revolution being the obvious example, but the Glorious Revolution, the Orange Revolution, and the fall of Communism/the Berlin Wall all also spring to mind. I think you're confusing 'revolution' with 'civil war'. If a revolution trips and falls into civil war, it's inevitably a bloodbath, and then we agree.

So for these libertarian, prepping, whacker, far-right whackaloons to think that a) they could fend off the might of the US military; b) resupply themselves by turning to the very parties they claim to hate; and c) the revolution would restore the US to a golden age is a patently, unashamedly absurd claim. Revising history, like this fellow farker is doing here, contributes to the delusion.

Absolutely agreed.

Regarding the other stuff in your statement, I've by and large agreed with you in this thread, so condecension is wholly unnecessary on your part.

Sincere apologies. That was a fair and measured response, and I'm entirely at fault. I'll plead the habit of snark as a reason but not an excuse, and use this as a reminder to be more careful in the future :)

2012-12-03 12:31:10 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then

this is about arming the "slaves" though.


Who funds the NRA? Who attends their rallies?

Gun rights advocates are mainly middle-class and upper-class people who worry that "law-abiding" people will be prevented by gun-control laws from arming themselves against "those people," who will find ways of getting guns no matter what the law says.
2012-12-03 12:27:58 PM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: The NRA endorses pro-gun democrats at the national level in *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*

Except for Harry Reid.

And endorsing Mitt Romney despite his voting in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban.


I mean they gave Reid a B and Angle an A, but they didn't endorse either of them: Link. They actually gave money to Reid as well.
2012-12-03 12:02:33 PM
1 votes:

Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then


And the other last thing you want is to have your slaves armed when they revolt.

/as true today as it was then
2012-12-03 11:00:15 AM
1 votes:
Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?
2012-12-03 10:59:21 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.


You mean fear of imaginary threats?

The ACLU steps in when people are being censored. The NRA steps in when alternate reality Obama enacts his invisible fake-out plan to not ban guns because he's totally about to ban guns.
2012-12-03 10:49:01 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.


I dunno, man, NRA's been getting a little... nuts with the partisan shiat lately. While they still provide a valuable service in their vehement opposition to any restrictions on the 2nd amendment, since the late 90s or so they've been getting less and less... credible, with the encouraging the "Obama's grabbing our guns" shiat and neglecting the sporting aspect of the organization entirely in favor of almost solely focusing on the self-defense aspect. Which isn't necessarily illegitimate in itself, just kinda... uncomfortably paranoid for an organization supposedly consisting of lawyers and lawmakers.

Basically, I don't think putting the ACLU and the NRA in the same sentence is really legitimate anymore. The ACLU is chugging along basically as it always has, focusing on first and fourth amendment cases over others, while the NRA is now an industry advocate focusing on fearmongering rather than being a civil liberties organization at all.
2012-12-03 10:38:03 AM
1 votes:

whistleridge: Lansydyr: [thismodernworld.com image 720x672]
/oblig

Well...they're right, in a way. It's true: guns don't kill people, any more than chainsaws, lathes, forklifts, or any other piece of powered equipment kills people. A gun is just a machine. In fact, a machine gun has a lot in common with a lathe.

But the people...Jesus Loving Christ, the people...

What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

Your often-stated belief that Armageddon will happen in your lifetime. Your fervent endorsement of literally unhinged candidates like Palin, Santorum, Rand Paul, and Bachmann. Your honest acceptance of the idea that Barack Obama is the WORST. PRESIDENT. EVAR. Your total disregard for the environment. Your utter lack of understanding of basic financial principles. The way you think you can cut taxes, increase military spending, AND balance the budget - while fighting two wars. Your constant harping on how bad it is that teachers can't lead classroom prayers and Creationism isn't taught in school, while simultaneously complaining that Islam is beginning to pervade government and we're secretly trending towards sharia law. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SHARIA IS.

And this isn't about you being 'conservative', either. Reagan was a conservative's conservative. I didn't like him, but I could work for him. George H. W. Bush was a conservative, and while I didn't agree with his fiscal policies I did and do respect the hell out of the man. He's everything a proud public servant should embody. I don't agree with all conservative policies, but I acknowledge there is underlying logic to many of them, and - pay attention, because this is important - I can work with them.

But you...you're ignorant, uneducated, absolutist, utterly unwilling to compromise, and apparently divorced from reality. And no...I don't want you to have a gun. If you honestly think Obama was born in Kenya, the Ryan Budget can work, and war with Iran is in ...


This. The day I stopped contributing to the NRA was the day I realized that, as an atheist and supporter of gay rights, I had more to fear from the average NRA member than I did from the government taking everyone's guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still pro-gun. I still think shall-issue concealed carry should be the law of the land (though business owners and particularly bars should have the right - but not the obligation - to prohibit concealed carry on their own premises), and that most proposed assault weapons bans (including the one that was law for a decade) have little effect on actual violence. I just have more important things to decide my vote upon.
2012-12-03 10:37:17 AM
1 votes:

vygramul: whistleridge: vygramul: Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?

No, but it might be the part where I point out that good mortar support is crucial to any small unit action and resupply is vital to every military action.

Even if all our hypothetical rednecks have AR-15s to fight off the Mexican invader, without resupply they'll just exhaust their ammo supplies that much faster. And without mortars (to say nothing of tube artillery and close air support), they'll be eaten alive. Ask the Taliban. They have mortars and RPGs. Hell, even 3rd-rate groups like AQIM have mortars and RPGs.

If the US ever fell into an insurrection of that type, the rebels would get RPGs from the same place the Syrian rebels do, and it's not the local gun shop.

The bottom line is that an insurrection is never going to be a purely civilians against purely military affair. In such a scenario, it's hard to imagine the military wouldn't fragment, as it did in 1860. After all, Lee turned down Union command, didn't he? But I'll take 20% of the military + 100 million assault rifles over 80% of the military. Especially since the 80% are in isolated, surrounded pockets.


So...run our country today in perpetual fear of a bloodbath to come? You and I both know that in a nuclear world, there is zero chance of an invader ever setting a non-glowing foot on US soil. If you think a city makes a tempting target, imagine what an invasion fleet full of fat slow troopships would look like.

If we ever get to the point that we're down to 20% of our military relying on assistance from - let's be realistic, 100 million will never happen - 10 million rednecks with assault rifles, we may as well hang it up, because at the point the aliens, vampires, or zombies are probably going to win.

And in the meantime, lots of schools will keep getting shot up...
2012-12-03 10:30:34 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........
Wrong.
This is a colonial era ammunition magazine:
[i46.tinypic.com image 628x306] 
High capacity eight shot magazine dangling from my neck. I've fired two of the eight shots.



right...magazine and shot are not the same.

Btw.....how long does it take to unload a colonial era clip?
2012-12-03 10:29:06 AM
1 votes:

vygramul: whistleridge: The paradox being, of course, that such limits entirely gut the 'well-regulated militia' bit. If you think a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles and sport guns (even fully automatic ones) are going to even slow down a modern army, you're dreaming.

Go look at an armored gunship. Even an old one, like a cobra. If you shoot at that with anything less than a javelin, you're asking to die. Personal weaponry isn't enough to meet that clause, but it's too much to stop the Loughners of the world.

So we need to be consistent: either make enough weaponry legal that the militia could actually survive (we'll overlook cost for a minute), or regulate it to the point that it's actually hard to shoot someplace up. This in-between crap is bs.

Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?


As a liberal with some military experience, I can tell you it's not useful against an insurgency, because the F-22 is designed as an air superiority (Read: air-to-air interceptor) fighter.

/Yes the F-22 was sold as having a ground attack role, a role it has not once used nor fully developed.
//Too many other problems with the damned albatross to even get to that point.
2012-12-03 10:22:10 AM
1 votes:

BeesNuts: Hobodeluxe: Cythraul: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Huh?

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?

and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure. food, guns, training and equipment.

It's "well regulated" not "well ordered" but both words carry the dual meaning. It's not really as clear as it's made out to be. That was on purpose. Like most things in the constitution, The Founders punted. Their job was to agree on the framework enough to put them in a new and fragile nation's basis of law. In the process, they were able to settle precisely fark all. That's why we have been perfecting and clarifying the verbiage for 2 centuries.

The Well Regulated Militia, was argued by federalists to mean a standing army, and was therefore treated as the training, arming, uniforming, and most importantly, centralization of the armed forces.

The anti-federalists argued that it was the role of the states to regulate their own militia, equip, train and lead them. And to allow the federal government to call on them in national defense with proper authority given by congress.


It was phrased as it was specifically to PROMOTE this confusion, rather than assuage it. It got the AF's and the F's to sit down at a table and think that the second amendment was written with them in mind.


The two bolded parts are why we have an active duty Armed Forces, Reserves, and the Army and Air National Guard. We couldn't figure out what they meant, so we ended up with both a federal and a state (albeit federally regulated) military. Some states have their own militias in addition to the National Guard though. (Click to know more)
2012-12-03 10:18:26 AM
1 votes:
I never understood why people supposedly concerned with liberty want their lives ruled by men that have been dead for 200 years.
2012-12-03 10:10:37 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Regardless of whether it's strange or not, it doesn't say that the right is limited to those actively enrolled in an organize militia.

It's not all that strange, either:

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts near where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed... N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXVII (1784).


That one is referring specifically to criminal prosecutions and is explaining why this clause is necessary. And the second clause is directly related to the first. You can't look at that and say it applies to civil cases as well. You could use this to explain that the Second Amendment is indeed limiting arms to members of the militia.

Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXIII (1784).

That one refers to an ex post facto laws, and then says they can't be made, so it's limiting. The clause also explains the need for this article. You can't turn around and say this limits anything other than "retrospective laws." So it's not a direct comparison to the 2nd Amendment's phrasing.

Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXXVI (1784).

That one is explaining the rationale for the law.

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . R.I. Const. art. I, § 20 (1842)

As is this one.

The last two are not limiting, but the first two look like they are.
2012-12-03 10:06:49 AM
1 votes:
Well that football player was probably raised listening to music that direspects women by calling them biatches and hoes. If it wasn't a gun he probably would have stabbed her, or bludgeoned her or choked her with his own hands.

Maybe we should restrict the content of music and whatnot.
2012-12-03 09:59:40 AM
1 votes:

sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem


Tibi clausa meretrix os, puberes loquimur nunc.
2012-12-03 09:51:26 AM
1 votes:

whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.


hey look ad hominem
2012-12-03 09:48:16 AM
1 votes:

Cythraul: dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

[rjw57.github.com image 500x420]


justification (plural justifications)
A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Hmmm. "The militia clause in the Second Amendment is a [justification, reason, explanation, excuse] for the individual right enumerated in the operative clause".

Nope. I'm using it the correct way.
2012-12-03 09:41:42 AM
1 votes:

Hobodeluxe: Cythraul: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Huh?

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?

and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.

food, guns, training and equipment.

It's "well regulated" not "well ordered" but both words carry the dual meaning. It's not really as clear as it's made out to be. That was on purpose. Like most things in the constitution, The Founders punted. Their job was to agree on the framework enough to put them in a new and fragile nation's basis of law. In the process, they were able to settle precisely fark all. That's why we have been perfecting and clarifying the verbiage for 2 centuries.

The Well Regulated Militia, was argued by federalists to mean a standing army, and was therefore treated as the training, arming, uniforming, and most importantly, centralization of the armed forces.

The anti-federalists argued that it was the role of the states to regulate their own militia, equip, train and lead them. And to allow the federal government to call on them in national defense with proper authority given by congress.

It was phrased as it was specifically to PROMOTE this confusion, rather than assuage it. It got the AF's and the F's to sit down at a table and think that the second amendment was written with them in mind.
2012-12-03 09:33:35 AM
1 votes:

rufus-t-firefly: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion*

*Offer not valid to muslims

From that article:

Rather than allowing the building of more mega-mosques in the United States, we should halt existing projects and seriously consider shutting down existing mosques to prevent the proliferation of an ideology that has publicly pledged to destroy America.

Because freedom.


Now THAT'S the blatant hypocrisy that I've come to known and expect from American Thinker. 

Seriously though, did we just step back into the 1990's? I thought we all agreed that gun control is a political no-go.
2012-12-03 09:29:24 AM
1 votes:

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


Yes, it was totally inappropriate the way he discussed a relevant story that was recent. That kind of discussion is reserved for quiet rooms rented out by the NRA. For a Constitution circle jerk, you sure are hating on that First Amendment awfully hard.
2012-12-03 09:19:22 AM
1 votes:

Leader O'Cola: "firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.



It'll be interesting to see what the argument about hand-held laser weapons will be, which will be with us in 30 years or so. Are they a nukey-style arm ("Ban them! Especially from foreighns!") or a bullet gun ("MORE! MORE!").

Actually, what's the argument for tasers? I'm not in the US, but to people consider taser ownership a "right"?
2012-12-03 09:17:32 AM
1 votes:
There's been gun control since this country was founded. Entire towns would ban guns, and you'd have to give your gun to the Sheriff when you came to the town.

I'm in favor of gun ownership, but the 2nd Amendment was not intended the way that people now claim it's intended.
2012-12-03 09:15:43 AM
1 votes:
"firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.
2012-12-03 09:09:24 AM
1 votes:

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I watched a Charlie Rose interview with Scalia. Rose asked him when did the politicization and polarization regarding the SCOTUS begin and when will it end?

Scalia answered it started with the Bork nomination. And he said it won't end until his side--the side that says the Constitution should not be modified by SCOTUS opinion--wins.

There is no hope left. The SCOTUS is the only political contest that cannot be "primaried" if an official makes a bad decision.


Which is why we need SCOTUS term limits, IMHO. 18 year terms, a new justice every two years. Every President gets to put 2 on the court automatically, and there's no fears of having the court locked up for a generation for one side or the other.

It wouldn't greatly alter the composition of the court in a historical sense. The average age of newly appointed justices is about 53, which would get most justices out around retirement age. And it would get around the roadblocking that has begun to pop up since the 70's. Prior to that, the average term for a justice was something like 15 years; since 1970 the average length of service has jumped up big time to something like 25-26 years.
2012-12-03 09:07:56 AM
1 votes:
On the one hand, I'm completely pro-Second Amendment but not a gun owner, and as such I don't really have a horse in this race. On the other hand, American Potato doesn't recognise the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment (the one that says that brown and gay people are human beings), so I just want to say that their hypocritical cherry-picking asses can bite me.

The way these farknuggets wildly masturbate to some parts of the Constitution and completely ignore the rest annoys me even more than the birther bullshiat. The Constitution is not the bloody Bible, it just doesn't work that way.
2012-12-03 09:03:07 AM
1 votes:
Maybe the most reasonable article to ever come out of American Thinker. I don't necessarily agree with it, nor do I think trashy reality shows are saving our freedoms, but I never once looked off in the corner and said "What the fark am I reading?"
2012-12-03 08:57:09 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.


rjw57.github.com
2012-12-03 08:56:41 AM
1 votes:
That's right subby, the "Framers" all shared one consciousness and agreed on every single aspect of the Constitution.

/read a book, dumb ass
//I support gun ownership
///but not ignorance
2012-12-03 08:54:26 AM
1 votes:

Hobodeluxe: and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.


"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"

Whoever wrote the above is a commie socialist freedom hating bastard.
2012-12-03 08:51:16 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.


What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.
2012-12-03 08:50:12 AM
1 votes:
They lived in an era when your typical American would have starved to death without a gun.So,yeah, it was probably up there with other important stuff.
2012-12-03 08:48:56 AM
1 votes:
Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Can't threaten to hurt people.
Can't commit slander/libel.
Can't do the above and claim religious immunity.
Can't kill people and claim religious immunity.
Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.
2012-12-03 08:48:33 AM
1 votes:

Cythraul: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Huh?

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?


and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.
2012-12-03 08:46:25 AM
1 votes:

Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.


This is America. We invent our own threats. Several at a time.
2012-12-03 08:43:19 AM
1 votes:
I might have believed this, prior to the Stinker trying to tell me. Now I wouldn't be so sure.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 08:39:53 AM
1 votes:
Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.
 
Displayed 69 of 69 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report