Florida School Shooting At Least 17 Dead

[LiveToLift]

Amendments cannot be unconstitutional since they are part of the constitution.This. They really don't. At all. The primary argument(especially from politicians) is almost entirely based upon ignorance. Movies give this false perception of what "silencers" do. It really doesn't lower the Db level that much, and would still require a person to wear their usual hearing protection. The big thing for it is that with ear plugs or muffs, hearing can still be permanently damaged because they don't make a big enough difference, but with both a suppressor and your usual earpro, you could realistically avoid that damage (or significantly reduce it).

See below for a fairly comprehensive outline of pros/cons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/20/are-firearms-with-a-silencer-quiet/

Well we will see how that works out gym. As I mentioned I would love to see them readily available but dont find it likely.

 

[youngandfree]

I kind of touched base on it with my follow up but the strong left and most gun opposers hate the idea of anything added to us gun owners rights. So to keep from strong lobbying against gun rights it may just be a time where being happy where we are is a smart option.

Like i mentioned it doesnt mean i feel this to be my full opinion but i do understand the concept.

When have the antigunners stopped lobbying against gun rights? That's a weak argument that I don't buy into. There's no reason a supressor shouldn't be classified as a regular firearm instead of an NFA item.

 

[youngandfree]

I'm not attacking you! But I can only explain it so many ways before I call you a name and everybody gets mad at me again. Real life involves picking your battles. If gun owners want to keep poking the stick, don't be surprised is all that I'm saying. You've already complained about antifa getting violent...imagine that, but anti-gun.

They already are.

 

[youngandfree]

Oh and if you were asking my opinion on suppressors personally i would love them being legal for the protection stand point. I shoot quite often whether it be my AR, 300 or my hand gun the sound even with different forms of hearing protection still stays with me hours after a shoot.

But I feel the anti gun folks have a strong case against them. They will lobby the main purpose would be to be used in violent attacks to keep from being detected.

What's their case against them? There is no evidence that any have been used in crimes. Of course they will just lie and make stuff up like they always do. But to think not pushing for a common sense law that's siMilan to european gun laws because you are afraid the will make up more stuff is pointless.

 

[youngandfree]

It's very much a restriction, but not sure it's an infringement. Not allowing fully automatics doesn't do away with the purpose of the 2A. In fact, the framers couldn't have contemplated the 2A allowing fully automatics because they didn't exist. Almost every right in the constitution has some limitation. It's not two sentences of endless power. They have to be interpreted and modified for current society. What works for the 1800s doesn't really translate to modern America.

The framers allowed for citizens to have the same weapons as the military to provide against a future tyrannical government. Nothing written indicates that they didn't want that to be the case in the future. Fully automatic weapons are legal and not restricted by the Constitution. Same as supressors for that matter.

 

[youngandfree]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/02/19/high-school-student-arrested-after-allegedly-saying-during-class-i-could-buy-an-ar-15?utm_********facebook&************social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_**********dailywire-reciprocity

So where do we draw the line? This kid doesn't make any threats to the school or anyone else, yet gets arrested. Is it in bad taste, sure. Still getting charged after the investigation finding he made no threats to anyone at all, is a bit absurd.

 

[Woody]

The framers allowed for citizens to have the same weapons as the military to provide against a future tyrannical government. Nothing written indicates that they didn't want that to be the case in the future. Fully automatic weapons are legal and not restricted by the Constitution. Same as supressors for that matter.

They aren't contemplated by the Constitution. They didn't exist. The Constitution, when it was written, didn't restrict them or unrestrict them.

 

[LiveToLift]

What's their case against them? There is no evidence that any have been used in crimes. Of course they will just lie and make stuff up like they always do. But to think not pushing for a common sense law that's siMilan to european gun laws because you are afraid the will make up more stuff is pointless.

Im not sure if you realize people you are trying to convince are on the same side of the line as you. I can play dumb all day if you would like and say people don't have a predetermined bias on the topic just from everyday thoughts swayed by movies and other media on suppresors or as they will call them "silencers". Its unfortunate but true. Like i mentioned i am all for them for my own hearing protection and will push for them if it comes up but to not understand they have a bias if they are already antigun is a bit goofy.

Once again go try to convince those opposing not people like myself bud.

 

[youngandfree]

They aren't contemplated by the Constitution. They didn't exist. The Constitution, when it was written, didn't restrict them or unrestrict them.

So how can the argument be made that the founders "never intended on having civilians having ar15's" or they never imagined automatic weapons?

 

[youngandfree]

Im not sure if you realize people you are trying to convince are on the same side of the line as you. I can play dumb all day if you would like and say people don't have a predetermined bias on the topic just from everyday thoughts swayed by movies and other media on suppresors or as they will call them "silencers". Its unfortunate but true. Like i mentioned i am all for them for my own hearing protection and will push for them if it comes up but to not understand they have a bias if they are already antigun is a bit goofy.

Once again go try to convince those opposing not people like myself bud.

Not trying to convince you of anything other than the basis of your argument is pointless. To fear that antigunners are going to make wild and absurd claims about something that is currently legal to own, is pointless. You let them win by default for not standing up against those absurd claims. If you don't push for something that is common sense, they get what they want. If you push for it, and they fight back, and it doesn't pass, they win. There's currently 164 cosponsors of the bill in Congress already btw.

 

[Woody]

So how can the argument be made that the founders "never intended on having civilians having ar15's" or they never imagined automatic weapons?

I never said the quoted phrase. I was talking about fully automatics. Logically, how can they intend for folks to have something that didn't exist even in theory? They were using muskets that shot 1 bullet every 18 years *hyperbole*. You take 2-3 classes on the Constitution in law school so my perspective is likely different than yours

 

[LiveToLift]

Just to get back to the original post has anyone seen this floating around?

 

[youngandfree]

I never said the quoted phrase. I was talking about fully automatics. Logically, how can they intend for folks to have something that didn't exist even in theory? They were using muskets that shot 1 bullet every 18 years *hyperbole*. You take 2-3 classes on the Constitution in law school so my perspective is likely different than yours

I'm not saying you made the quoted phrase specifically. I'm asking the question since that's the argument that gets tossed around. It has been mentioned in this post already. Did the framers intend for the citizens to have rifles equal to the military in order to defend against a future tyrannical government? Did the citizens back then actually have weapons equal to the military? If they never contemplated the AR15, or fully automatic weapons, would exist, how can the argument be made they didn't intend for citizens to have weapons like the military?

 

[youngandfree]

View attachment 160427
Just to get back to the original post has anyone seen this floating around?

No but Eric Holder ran the same game plan with Fast and Furious.

 

[Woody]

I'm not saying you made the quoted phrase specifically. I'm asking the question since that's the argument that gets tossed around. It has been mentioned in this post already. Did the framers intend for the citizens to have rifles equal to the military in order to defend against a future tyrannical government? Did the citizens back then actually have weapons equal to the military? If they never contemplated the AR15 would exist, how can the argument be made they didn't intend for citizens to have weapons like the military?

Under this view the 2A allows citizens to have nuclear weapons, ICBM, tanks and aircraft bombers.

 

[ax1]

I never said the quoted phrase. I was talking about fully automatics. Logically, how can they intend for folks to have something that didn't exist even in theory? They were using muskets that shot 1 bullet every 18 years *hyperbole*. You take 2-3 classes on the Constitution in law school so my perspective is likely different than yours

They primarily intended for equal/balance of powers, so logically if they lived today they would probably be all for it. If they saw how government functions today how they shyt all over the Bill of Rights, they would certainly want people to be of superior firepower. They would lead the charge restoring for all they fought for.

 

[ax1]

Under this view the 2A allows citizens to have nuclear weapons, ICBM, tanks and aircraft bombers.

My friends neighbor owned a tank. He put it up for sale on the side of the road too lol.

 

[youngandfree]

Under this view the 2A allows citizens to have nuclear weapons, ICBM, tanks and aircraft bombers.

Nice deflection. Tanks are legal also btw. Rocket launchers, grenades, RPG's. Even the actual explosives are legal to own by citizens today as we speak.

 

[UCSMiami]

In my view the militia was the responsible body of men of any town, city, etc. who would drill and be used to supplement the regular army or act against it if the Federal Gov't chose to be tyrannical. The outbreak of Secession against perceived Federal tyranny by some states showed the Federal Gov't too weak and the militia system a threat eventually being revamped in I believe 1905? see Bumpers Act. Warfare had moved forward to where a large professional standing military was needed and part time militia were most useful if under Federal control. The National Guard as we know it now.

I know the 2nd was originally to protect us from our govt and that was in an era when the individual needed very little from the govt and made his own way in life. We now and for some time have many govt programs we benefit from and rely on the govt to protect us that were not present in the past. The people seceded certain levels of their Rights to the govt. long ago as the world modernized since the days of the Const. The relatively close call to the nation during the Civil War showed how the militia was a threat to the central govt because the regular army was weak when faced with a combination of State militias. The result was to weaken the militia which also weakened the 2nd Amend. A passing at the time without outcry due to the damage caused by the Civil War. States Rights are now defended by the Supreme Court rather than by an armed body of men.

2A then morphed into the right to bear arms for home defense from intrusion, civil disturbance and other defense of life situations. Which is a natural right not needing declaration in the Constitution as the 2nd there was a Political Right. Militias possessed artillery and an armory.(Recall British troops marched on Concord to confiscate/destroy militia arms/gunpowder/artillery there a political act not one which would take the privately owned weapons of the people in the town) Since the vast majority of people behaved responsibly and the Federal Gov't was not intrusive then minimal policing and regulations were enacted. Even when automatic weapons were allowed into private hands circulation.

Firearms and their ammunition are now and have been since the 1920/30s very powerful(ammunition moreso) and one crazed person can create a disproportionate amount of damage before being contained. In a country of 340million plus with declining focus on individual responsibility and accountability will create disaffected persons who lash out violently. Before Columbine we had the infamous USPS related shootings, the origin of the now obsolete expression "Going Postal". Research into those cases showed the employees, Intelligent and usually balanced persons, were treated poorly by the seniors and felt trapped in their world. What we know call a toxic work environment. Those shooters targeted co-workers. Later mass shootings were for revenge, political or religious reasons, thrill(Paddock-Vegas presumed),and in then there are the severely mentally ill created shootings(Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, Aurora). High performance ammunition and location creating mass casualties.

As for what to do now, I do not have that answer. Would require in-depth study from an incremental to marginal to major change options. Federal Govt does not do well in acting on the small scale with exceptions to all-encompassing regulations. Their forte is large expansive decisions. Because they have to deal with millions of people in their decisions. There is an answer. Needs to rational and not emotional. We have become a nation of emotion. Which leads to poor decisions.

 

[2Burnt]

The video from the ground taken by vicitms that had shots coming from multiple directions was kind of odd if you ask me. Funny that one shooter can do that. But its a moot point at this time as all those videos amazingly disappeared as quickly as they were put up.

 

[jimbuick]

View attachment 160420

We need pretend light sabers and laser blasters.
pew-pew... I got you.


The second amendment; written when it took somebody 1-2 minutes to load a musket with one bullet...

Also written when the Army and the citizens were allowed the exact same arms, if you want to play that game.

 

[justhere4comm]

Also written when the Army and the citizens were allowed the exact same arms, if you want to play that game.

Also, much else has changed in the process. Do you fear your government?
The real weapons of citizens are the laws.

Watch the next Midterms and your answer for a peaceful revolution will be clear. Not a shot fired.
You don't need automatic or semi-automatic anything.

Here are some great examples of invasive laws that protect you from you:

- Seat belts
- Traffic Signals
- Speed Laws
- Drinking and Driving Laws
etc.

People will break the laws above, and some get away with it, but they save lives. Not needed during the Horse n Buggy days...

 

[SkRaw85]

Wish it were possible to block an entire thread lol. Didn’t realize this was a straight up news comment section war.

 

[SkRaw85]

Sick of seeing this $hit top of timeline 100% of time. Go f*#cking lift heavy things.

 

[justhere4comm]

Sick of seeing this $hit top of timeline 100% of time. Go f*#cking lift heavy things.

Going to lift heavy things.

:afro:

edit:
Remembers he's all busted up from crashing his bike. Sits down. :/

 

[jimbuick]

In my view the militia was the responsible body of men of any town, city, etc. who would drill and be used to supplement the regular army or act against it if the Federal Gov't chose to be tyrannical. The outbreak of Secession against perceived Federal tyranny by some states showed the Federal Gov't too weak and the militia system a threat eventually being revamped in I believe 1905? see Bumpers Act. Warfare had moved forward to where a large professional standing military was needed and part time militia were most useful if under Federal control. The National Guard as we know it now.

I know the 2nd was originally to protect us from our govt and that was in an era when the individual needed very little from the govt and made his own way in life. We now and for some time have many govt programs we benefit from and rely on the govt to protect us that were not present in the past. The people seceded certain levels of their Rights to the govt. long ago as the world modernized since the days of the Const. The relatively close call to the nation during the Civil War showed how the militia was a threat to the central govt because the regular army was weak when faced with an combination of State militias. The result was to weaken the militia which also weakened the 2nd Amend. A passing at the time without outcry due to the damage caused by the Civil War. States Rights are now defended by the Supreme Court rather than by an armed body of men.

2A then morphed into the right to bear arms for home defense from intrusion, civil disturbance and other defense of life situations. Which is a natural right not needing declaration in the Constitution as the 2nd there was a Political Right. Militia's possessed artillery and an armory.(Recall the British troops marched on Concord to confiscate/destroy militia arms/gunpowder/artillery there a political act not one which would take the privately owned weapons of the people in the town) Since the vast majority of people behaved responsibly and the Federal Gov't was not intrusive then minimal policing and regulations were enacted. Even when automatic weapons were allowed into private hands circulation.

Firearms and their ammunition are now and have been since the 1920/30s very powerful(ammunition moreso) and one crazed person can create a disproportionate amount of damage before being contained. In a country of 340million plus with declining focus on individual responsibility and accountability will create disaffected persons who lash out violently. Before Columbine we had the infamous USPS related shootings, the origin of the now obsolete expression "Going Postal". Research into those cases showed the employees, Intelligent and usually balanced persons, were treated poorly by the seniors and felt trapped in their world. What we know call a toxic work environment. Those shooters targeted co-workers. Later mass shootings were for revenge, political or religious reasons, thrill(Paddock-Vegas presumed),and in then there are the severely mentally ill created shootings(Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, Aurora). High performance ammunition and location creating mass casualties.

As for what to do now, I do not have that answer. Would require in-depth study from an incremental to marginal to major change options. Federal Govt does not do well in acting on the small scale with exceptions to all-encompassing regulations. Their forte is large expansive decisions. Because they have to deal with millions of people in their decisions. There is an answer. Needs to rational and not emotional. We have become a nation of emotion. Which leads to poor decisions.

That is not how the founders defined the militia.

Also, much else has changed in the process. Do you fear your government?
Do you think anyone in the armed forces or police would do anything to harm US Citizens to make them do anything except rise up and VOTE them out. The real weapons of citizens are the laws.

Hard to say. I am sure there are quite a large number of people (especially minorities) who believe otherwise (especially WRT police).

The weapons of the citizen are not laws, because citizens do not make laws. Those are the weapons of govt. Will that lead to armed revolution in my lifetime or otherwise? Maybe, maybe not. We are probably less likely to ever get to that point if the citizens are well armed, though.

Watch the next Midterms and your answer for a peaceful revolution will be clear. Not a shot fired.
You don't need automatic or semi-automatic anything.

Here are some great examples of invasive laws that protect you from you:

- Seat belts
- Traffic Signals
- Speed Laws
- Drinking and Driving Laws
etc.

People will break the laws above, and some get away with it, but they save lives. Not needed during the Horse n Buggy days...

Elections have not been anything remotely resembling revolution in the U.S. in a long, long time. Even if/when the House and Senate flip, it will not be anything remotely close to a "revolution" since both parties are so similar.

Don't much agree with seatbelt laws either, and most traffic laws (and drunk driving) were not to protect me from me, but to protect other citizens from me. I don't much care for laws that are meant to protect a person from himself.

 

[UCSMiami]

Oh well. I disagree. I am not a Constitutional expert. I do read books instead of blogs and SM. Maybe you are an expert. A one line answer suggests you are not. That is the typical sound bite put forward by the uninformed and unthinking masses of the Right and the Left. Just edit to suit your cognitive block.

 

[SkRaw85]

Going to lift heavy things.

:afro:

edit:
Remembers he's all busted up from crashing his bike. Sits down. :/

Lol. Go get it!

 

[jimbuick]

Oh well. I disagree. I am not a Constitutional expert. I do read books instead of blogs and SM. Maybe you are an expert. A one line answer suggests you are not. That is the typical sound bite put forward by the uninformed and unthinking masses of the Right and the Left.

No, it isn't. It is well documented in the Federalist Papers (among other sources).

 

[UCSMiami]

No, it isn't. It is well documented in the Federalist Papers (among other sources).

Which you apparently are unable to explain at length.

If you start saying people have firearms to defend themselves against our Govt in this day and age and folks will see you as a nut. Which is what has occurred in the decades past where armed groups have tried to defend themselves against perceived Govt injustice. Even the informal militia's of the early 1990s were viewed as societal outcasts and threats to the country. That same overreaching Govt is what has allowed us to prosper privately and protect us from internal/external threats for most of us to achieve a lifestyle beyond what was available at the time of the Const. or even decades ago. Doubt anyone will take up arms against the Govt if they over-reach. Get a lawyer instead.

Layers of our Rights have been traded off to account for a modern and violent world and the need for the Govt to set standards and criteria.

2nd Amend is important and needs to be protected. One needs to speak in a manner not to have the other side think we are nuts when debating the topic. We can defend it better by putting forward explanations in line with modern society.

 

[youngandfree]

Which you apparently are unable to explain at length.

If you start saying people have firearms to defend themselves against our Govt in this day and age and folks will see you as a nut. Which is what has occurred in the decades past where armed groups have tried to defend themselves against perceived Govt injustice. Even the informal militia's of the early 1990s were viewed as societal outcasts and threats to the country. That same overreaching Govt is what has allowed us to prosper privately and protect us from internal/external threats for most of us to achieve a lifestyle beyond what was available at the time of the Const. or even decades ago. Doubt anyone will take up arms against the Govt if they over-reach. Get a lawyer instead.

Layers of our Rights have been traded off to account for a modern and violent world and the need for the Govt to set standards and criteria.

2nd Amend is important and needs to be protected. One needs to speak in a manner not to have the other side think we are nuts when debating the topic. We can defend it better by putting forward explanations in line with modern society.

Says the guy that admits to not being a constitutional scholar?

 

[UCSMiami]

Says the guy that admits to not being a constitutional scholar?

I think all of us are in the same boat there and of course, I prefixed the long post with a critical qualifier. But hey, it is the Internet, and the snappy comeback gets the chicken dinner.

 

[THOR 70]

Do you know how the Florida shooter got out?
He put his gun down and walked away with the other students. You are wanting untrained teachers be the schools defense system. A teacher isn't a police officer. What if the shooter is a teacher? What if one student takes a dead teachers gun to try to shoot the killer and is thought of as the attacker and killed by the untrained teacher?

The problem is the accessibility of guns, not the lack of armed folks in a high school.

Wrong. Problem is not accessibility of guns. If that was the problem then there would be a ton more shootings. The problem is the moral and emotional well being of society is being eroded. Get off the quick fix agenda of taking away an object when it’s the person using the object that is the problem we need to address. Stop thinking with emotion and use logic.

 

[jimbuick]

which you apparently are unable to explain at length.

Sure, I will waste my valuable time to educate you. Since Google is apparently too hard to operate.

Federalist No. 29

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government.* It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power.* What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen

...

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, or even a week, 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 ... *To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

...

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. notice that he does not call for training them (as it would be a futile effort) and simply calls for them to be well armed and assembled to ensure that they are

...

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.* This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

George Mason at the Virginia ratifying convention, in a lengthy argument against a standing military and for the militia as the only source of military power in the U.S. (as any military would pale in comparison to the sheer size and power of the armed populace), with state appointed officers and a body of citizen soldiers who could only be called to serve the govt under martial law said:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials

I prefer to use the primary source, since I believe it to be more compelling than my own words. There are more, of course, but I don't have the time to break down every debate and paper that refers to the militia for you.

 

[jimbuick]

Just an FYI, all Federalist papers are available, in their entirety, for free online. No "blogs or SM" necessary. (Although, as a history major, I still prefer to keep the hard copies in my library)

 

[justhere4comm]

Let's take a moment please and pause this discussion.
Select the link below.

Allow for Cadet Peter Wang to receive a Full Honors Military Burial​

 

[UCSMiami]

Sure, I will waste my valuable time to educate you. Since Google is apparently too hard to operate.

Federalist No. 29



George Mason at the Virginia ratifying convention, in a lengthy argument against a standing military and for the militia as the only source of military power in the U.S., with state appointed officers and a body of citizen soldiers who could only be called to serve the govt under martial law said:



I prefer to use the primary source, since I believe it to be more compelling than my own. There are more, of course, but I don't have the time to break down every debate and paper that refers to the militia for you.

I do not need you to educate me I needed you to explain in your own words what or why you stated what you did. You have provided very little of that other than to copy/paste a 200 year exchange of unofficial information(because it is not in the actual Const. or BoR) as if it were still relevant today. The type of argument that will not convince a modern reader as they will equate the FF with allowing slavery, barring women from voting, etc. Do you actually have any interpretative thought of you own?

There is no militia anymore in our modern society. Militia concept destroyed by the Civil War when it was shown to be a threat. Govt. intervention in our lives much more necessary, accepted and craved. Over-reach is settled courts.

Some of those first 10 Amend. dealt with issues present in the FF mind as a result of events leading to Rev.War- British quartering troops, British seizing armaments from the militia, British seizing persons, British martial law, British control of press.

The premise of the 2nd Amend. was compromised long ago and replaced with a massive Law Enf and military presence and judiciary. What would be expected as the centuries have moved forward. There was no standing army at the time of the Const and Law enf. was minimal. Resorting to armed violence would be a natural response. Not now

Have to roll with the times if you expect to win this latest assault on firearms.

 

[jimbuick]

Then there is also:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in*section 313 of title 32*, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

U.S. Code Title 10 Sec 311

 

[jimbuick]

What are you going on about? I am not trying to convince any reader about the current state of the 2a. You incorrectly defined the militia and I simply stated that your definition of it did not fall in line with that of the founders.

Which you said you disagreed with. I pointed out that it was well defined in the primary sources and you asked me to support that (actually, you accused me of being incapable of doing so).

 

[youngandfree]

I think all of us are in the same boat there and of course, I prefixed the long post with a critical qualifier. But hey, it is the Internet, and the snappy comeback gets the chicken dinner.

But then you went after someone else attacking their knowledge on the subject which is the issue as I see it.

 

[UCSMiami]

Then there is also:



U.S. Code Title 10 Sec 311

That is for Armed Forces

 

[UCSMiami]

But then you went after someone else attacking their knowledge on the subject which is the issue as I see it.

No because they just did a copy/paste without providing their own thoughts. Any fool can say look this up or copy/paste. Requires thinking to explain. Fellow did nothing of the sort. and was rude at first which, you know,in the Internet world means all courtesy just went out the window.
And as in the U.S. Code post above, posted misleading information. Like arguing with an anti-gunner. F-that.

 

[UCSMiami]

What are you going on about? I am not trying to convince any reader about the current state of the 2a. You incorrectly defined the militia and I simply stated that your definition of it did not fall in line with that of the founders.

Which you said you disagreed with. I pointed out that it was well defined in the primary sources and you asked me to support that (actually, you accused me of being incapable of doing so).

Exactly what I wrote. Any damn fool can copy/paste. Doc. is 200 years old. I work with documents 120 years old and see where language and meaning has changed.

If you only have as your argument to copy/paste docs without having the intellect to explain continued relevance today then you do your argument a disservice.

Anti-gunners laugh when they hear a pro-gunner state I have a Right to firearms to defend myself against the government. Anyone today would. I am a pro-firearm ownership person and own a few that might be banned and see the concept as ludicrous.

 

[jimbuick]

That is for Armed Forces

U.S. Title Code is not for Armed Forces. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is for Armed Forces.

That code defines the militia in the U.S. It goes on to say

The classes of the militia are--

 the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

 the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Further showing that it is not applying to AD soldiers or members of the National Guard. It legally defines the militia as all able bodied males.

No because they just did a copy/paste without providing their own thoughts. Any fool can say look this up or copy/paste. Requires thinking to explain. Fellow did nothing of the sort. and was rude at first which, you know,in the Internet world means all courtesy just went out the window.
And as in the U.S. Code post above, posted misleading information. Like arguing with an anti-gunner. F-that.

I was never rude, until you took it upon yourself to be. You posted something that was not in line with the founders usage of the term "militia," and I pointed that out. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly what I wrote. Any damn fool can copy/paste. Doc. is 200 years old. I work with documents 120 years old and see where language and meaning has changed.

If you only have as your argument to copy/paste docs without having the intellect to explain continued relevance today then you do your argument a disservice.

Anti-gunners laugh when they hear a pro-gunner state I have a Right to firearms to defend myself against the government. Anyone today would. I am a pro-firearm ownership person and own a few that might be banned and see the concept as ludicrous.

It was never an argument. It was a statement of fact. I never used it to justify whether or not there should or shouldn't be restriction. You made a statement that was not in line with the founders usage of a term. I pointed out the discrepancy and showed it to be the case.

You are trying to assign something to me that I have never done.

 

[UCSMiami]

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?package****USCODE-2011-title10&granule****USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311
Title 10 is Armed Forces

Of course you were rude and I would highlight where/when unless your definition of rude is it is ok to condescend someone. Does not matter now as it is done. No going back.

If you disagree to a statement put up why, not "not so", which adds nothing to a discussion. Did you actually believe that added anything to the discussion?

I was correct in my description of the militia. If you elect to disagree that is fine. If you elect to believe you are correct and I am not that is fine as well. Yeomanry as in one of your copy/paste is not everyone.

 

[Woody]

Wrong. Problem is not accessibility of guns. If that was the problem then there would be a ton more shootings. The problem is the moral and emotional well being of society is being eroded. Get off the quick fix agenda of taking away an object when it’s the person using the object that is the problem we need to address. Stop thinking with emotion and use logic.

No one is advocating for a ban of guns lol. No one is thinking with emotion here. Both sides have had fairly logically points. If you're unable to see that, maybe you should stop letting bias and emotion dictate your thoughts when considering an opposing perspective.

 

[jimbuick]

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?package****USCODE-2011-title10&granule****USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311
Title 10 is Armed Forces

Of course you were rude and I would highlight where/when unless your definition of rude is it is ok to condescend someone. Does not matter now as it is done. No going back.

If you disagree to a statement put up why, not "not so", which adds nothing to a discussion. Did you actually believe that added anything to the discussion?

I was correct in my description of the militia. If you elect to disagree that is fine. If you elect to believe you are correct and I am not that is fine as well. Yeomanry as in one of your copy/paste is not everyone.

Title 10 defines the Armed Forces (among other things) in U.S. law, not military law. One of those things done in Title 10 is legally defining the militia. The whole Code is available to read, most of it in this thread.

I posted a singular statement informing you that you were incorrect. That isn't rude. Implying that someone is part of the "uninformed masses" "parroting" things they don't understand from "blogs and SM" is.

This isn't a difference of opinion. Your definition of the militia is different from how it was intended by the founders. Period. It isn't opinion. It is explicitly stated throughout the primary sources, some of which having been provided as evidence.

Whether or not that definition should still be applied is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about historical fact. You made an assertion about the militia that is not in line with the founders intention. I pointed that out and provided the source of that fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[jimbuick]

Like, I don't know what is so difficult about this. In this matter, my opinion is irrelevant. The statement is that your opinion of the militia is not in line with the framers usage of the term. Thus, the way to prove that would be through the primary sources written by the framers.

 

[youngandfree]

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?package****USCODE-2011-title10&granule****USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311
Title 10 is Armed Forces

Of course you were rude and I would highlight where/when unless your definition of rude is it is ok to condescend someone. Does not matter now as it is done. No going back.

If you disagree to a statement put up why, not "not so", which adds nothing to a discussion. Did you actually believe that added anything to the discussion?

I was correct in my description of the militia. If you elect to disagree that is fine. If you elect to believe you are correct and I am not that is fine as well. Yeomanry as in one of your copy/paste is not everyone.

That's a bad link. The armed forces doesn't take all able bodied males 17 years old last I checked.

 

[UCSMiami]

Title 10 defines the Armed Forces (among other things) in U.S. law, not military law. One of those things done in Title 10 is legally defining the militia. The whole Code is available to read, most of it in this thread.

I posted a singular statement informing you that you were incorrect. That isn't rude. Implying that someone is part of the "uninformed masses" "parroting" things they don't understand from "blogs and SM" is.

This isn't a difference of opinion. Your definition of the militia is different from how it was intended by the founders. Period. It isn't opinion. It is explicitly stated throughout the primary sources, some of which having been provided as evidence.

Whether or not that definition should still be applied is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about historical fact. You made an assertion about the militia that is not in line with the founders intention. I pointed that out and provided the source of that fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

No man. I disagree and explained.

Like, I don't know what is so difficult about this. In this matter, my opinion is irrelevant. The statement is that your opinion of the militia is not in line with the framers usage of the term. Thus, the way to prove that would be through the primary sources written by the framers.

You are doing it again. Nothing difficult and you are makeing some sort of claim that this difficult for me. I could do the same to you in many places. I disagree and stated where.

But really whatever. This is getting akin to girls arguing.