The gun hater's lament. [W:487, 811]

[LaMidRighter]

It doesn't matter does it? You claim that nukes are too extreme, I claim machine guns are too extreme. The second amendment provides protection of arms, making you a hypocrite if you only support half of it.

It does matter. If you can't answer the questions about full auto you aren't qualified to call it extreme. So tell me, what are the tradeoffs to full auto? Is the ammunition bigger or "hotter" than a hunting rifle's? What are the tactical advantages and disadvantages of full auto? Is it particularly useful to a crime? More unstable than semi-auto, bolt action in that it will fire at random? How's the accuracy?

 

[YoungConserv]

It doesn't matter does it? You claim that nukes are too extreme, I claim machine guns are too extreme. The second amendment provides protection of arms, making you a hypocrite if you only support half of it.

Legal definition of ARMS: Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. I don't think a nuclear missle falls fits as it can not be carried.

 

[American]

Think logically here, a nuclear weapon is considered an "arm" do you support Americans sitting with a missile or two in their back yard? There has to be limits and you and I both know that.

These two sentences in the same place is pure irony. Show where people are seriously saying that everyone should be allowed to have nukes. I know of no one, and I've been here for years.

 

[Morrigi]

To understand the second amendment you would have to understand what the forefathers understood and intended "arms" to mean.


arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces
c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military) in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military) lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military) present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military) take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly
[from Old French armes, from Latin arma; see arm2]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


The second amendment as passed by the House of Representatives in 1789 read...

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person...."
http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_hr.txt

Without any qualifiers, "the conscientious objector clause, "bearing arms" clearly conveys an exclusively military or fighting connotation, and thus it would seem "to bear arms" also has a military meaning. Otherwise, we are talking about different meanings associated with the same word within the same amendment. Highly improbable, especially since most of the framers were lawyers."

Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

The framers clearly intended "to bear arms" to mean arming a militia and not bastardized into meaning an individual right to self defense outside the context of a militia defending the state. The framers would have understood individual "self defense" to be a natural inalienable right that can't be taken away and therefore didn't need enumeration beyond the protection found in the ninth amendment in the Bill of Rights.

I'm just gonna torpedo the last bit about the militia.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."

- James Madison

Now this one does have the caveat of being "trained in arms." Honestly, that can't be a bad idea. As soon as I get a gun I know I'm going to get some kind of firearms training whether it be from a friend or a formal class.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Elbridge Gerry

Look what happened.

'I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.'
- George Mason


Ah, George Mason. The little-known second Founding Father who worked so hard on our Bill of Rights. That said, it is clear that the militia consists of the entire people of the United States with the exception of government officials.

More quotes supporting this intent and the fact behind it below:

Spoiler

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

"If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist."
— Edward Livingston

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
-George Mason”

"A sword never kills anybody;

it is a tool in the killer's hand."

- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (54 BC-39 AD)
Roman Rhetorician and Writer

And now some perspective from the opposite end of the spectrum...

Spoiler

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
- Josef Stalin

Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our
enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
- Josef Stalin

"Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market
in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned
to be law abiding that they would never consider buying an
unregistered gun. The German people really believed that
only hoodlums own guns. What fools we were. It truly
frightens me to see how the government, media and some
police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset."
- Theodore Haas

"Every communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Zedong, "Problems of War and Strategy", 1938.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the
SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns
doesn't serve the State."
- Heinrich Himmler

 

[Slyfox696]

These two sentences in the same place is pure irony. Show where people are seriously saying that everyone should be allowed to have nukes. I know of no one, and I've been here for years.

I think the point is once you recognize some weapons can be legislated, then it's quite easy to understand why all can be legislated.

 

[Moot]

I'm just gonna torpedo the last bit about the militia.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."

- James Madison

Now this one does have the caveat of being "trained in arms." Honestly, that can't be a bad idea. As soon as I get a gun I know I'm going to get some kind of firearms training whether it be from a friend or a formal class.

It wasn't a caveat to Madison. He meant trained in "military" arms. "Arms" and "to "bear arms" were military terms in Madison's day. Arms, armory, army, arming an army...

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Elbridge Gerry

Thank you for helping to prove my arguement.

Elbridge Gerry was in charge of supplying and protecting the arms and munitions to the militias in Concord. His main concern would have been to protect the armories that stored the arms and munitions from the British and to make sure that the local people in the militias had access them. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gerry was a strong advocate for civilian control of the military.


"...Gerry....<snip>.....was assigned to its committee of safety, responsible for assuring that the province's limited supplies of weapons and gunpowder remained out of British Army hands. His actions were partly responsible for the storage of weapons and ammunition in Concord; these stores were the target of the British raiding expedition that sparked the start of the American Revolutionary War with the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775.[11]
Elbridge Gerry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look what happened.

'I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.'
- George Mason


Ah, George Mason. The little-known second Founding Father who worked so hard on our Bill of Rights. That said, it is clear that the militia consists of the entire people of the United States with the exception of government officials.

Thats right, the second amendments intent is to protect the right of the people to be part of a milita. That was never in dispute...at least not by me.

More quotes supporting this intent and the fact behind it below:

Spoiler

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

"If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist."
— Edward Livingston

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
-George Mason”

"A sword never kills anybody;

it is a tool in the killer's hand."

- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (54 BC-39 AD)
Roman Rhetorician and Writer

And now some perspective from the opposite end of the spectrum...

Spoiler

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
- Josef Stalin

Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our
enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
- Josef Stalin

"Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market
in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned
to be law abiding that they would never consider buying an
unregistered gun. The German people really believed that
only hoodlums own guns. What fools we were. It truly
frightens me to see how the government, media and some
police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset."
- Theodore Haas

"Every communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Zedong, "Problems of War and Strategy", 1938.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the
SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns
doesn't serve the State."
- Heinrich Himmler

lol If you had actually read and understood my posts you'd find that you are not disagreeing with me but rather helping to prove the intent of the second amendment is for militas.

 

[head of joaquin]

Mr Sanghoee needs to go back to where he is from if he has no respect for our constitution.

New York?

Sanjay Sanghoee is a banker and the author of Killing Wall Street, a new thriller about the financial crisis, as well as Merger, a corporate thriller praised by Chicago Tribune, BARRON’s and others. He is also a political and business commentator.

Sanjay has more than a decade of experience in banking, ranging from Mergers & Acquisitions at Lazard and Dresdner to the investment side at Ramius, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. He currently sits on the Board of a mid-market Hispanic radio station group which owns 30 stations. Sanjay has an MBA from Columbia Business School.

Oh I get it, Sanjay doesn't have an anglo name so he must be a furner. God, boomsticklovers are predictable

 

[Morrigi]

It wasn't a caveat to Madison. He meant trained in "military" arms. "Arms" and "to "bear arms" were military terms in Madison's day. Arms, armory, army,...


Thank you for helping to prove my arguement.

Elbridge Gerry was in charge of supplying and protecting the arms and munitions to the militias in Concord. His main concern would have been to protect the armories that stored the arms and munitions from the British and to make sure that the local people in the militias had access them. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gerry was a strong advocate for civilian control of the military.


"...Gerry....<snip>.....was assigned to its committee of safety, responsible for assuring that the province's limited supplies of weapons and gunpowder remained out of British Army hands. His actions were partly responsible for the storage of weapons and ammunition in Concord; these stores were the target of the British raiding expedition that sparked the start of the American Revolutionary War with the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775.[11]
Elbridge Gerry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Thats right, the second amendments intent is to protect the right of the people to be part of a milita. That was never in dispute...at least not by me.


lol If you had actually read and understood my posts you'd find that you are not disagreeing with me but rather helping to prove the intent of the second amendment is for militas.

You are failing to understand the definition of militia as put forth by the Founding Fathers. The militia are the people, owning and bearing arms and to be assembled in an orderly fashion in times of need. Some kind of training is encouraged, but the militia is explicitly referred to as the people* on multiple occasions within the quotes of the Founding Fathers and decisively implied in the Second Amendment itself.

*Meaning all of them capable of fighting

 

[Arbo]

You are failing to understand the definition of militia as put forth by the Founding Fathers. The militia are the people, owning and bearing arms and to be assembled in an orderly fashion in times of need. Some kind of training is encouraged, but the militia is explicitly referred to as the people on multiple occasions within the quotes of the Founding Fathers and decisively implied in the Second Amendment itself.

Honestly, I don't know why you all bother with her, it was the same argument months ago. Nothing has sunk in with her... same old path, no matter the facts.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think the point is once you recognize some weapons can be legislated, then it's quite easy to understand why all can be legislated.

and once a gun hater thinks some laws that mainly restrict law abiding people actually decreases crime, it is easy for us to note that gun haters will support more and more restrictions on honest people.

 

[haymarket]

A child haters lament....

Mocking the parents of dead children, calling the massacre a hoax, mocking the dead children on facebook, giving away free AR-15's, basturdizing the constitution, calling themselves the real victims, shutting down the debate with mocking, bullying and misinformation.....

"...Nothing says “I’m responsible enough to own a gun” than Republicans who mock the deaths of 20 first and second graders by raffling off AR-15s, the very gun used at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut...."
GOP giving away free AR-15 "Sandy Hook" rifles as pro-gun stunt

That is really an excellent post Moot. You hit just the right chord. Well done.

 

[TurtleDude]

That is really an excellent post Moot. You hit just the right chord. Well done.

It was a silly hate filled post that again tries to use the blood of dead children to paint a guilt trip on law abiding gun owners. I have no use for people who try to use dead children as a foil to advance their hate filled anti gun idiocy. And the parents of those children who try to salve their hurt by raping our rights are not going to get a pass for such behavior from me

 

[Arbo]

and once a gun hater thinks some laws that mainly restrict law abiding people actually decreases crime, it is easy for us to note that gun haters will support more and more restrictions on honest people.

They always do.

BTW, I can neither confirm or deny that I may or may not have loaded more than 7 rounds into a mag when visiting with a friend in NY and we went shooting within the past month.

 

[TurtleDude]

New York?




Oh I get it, Sanjay doesn't have an anglo name so he must be a furner. God, boomsticklovers are predictable

where he comes from matters not. the fact is he has no credentials in this field is what matters. He's a left winger whose comments are silly

Here is a pretty good slap of that clown

Sanjay Sanghoee Re-Imagines the Founders' Intentions | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns

 

[Moot]

Do you shed a tear when you post that type of non sense?
I will tell you that 20 or 200 dead dont trump my 2A rights.

Wow, thats says a lot. So you didn't think it was funny? I thought it was funny. Gun nuts just love to accessorize...so they could have the engraving on the guns match their tattoos. lol

But, what about all the children that are beaten to death? Should we ban fists? I mean you really dont have a right to make a fist in anger.

Do you think the forefathers were stupid? Do you really believe they didn't know the difference between beating a child to death with your fists and arming a milita?

 

[haymarket]

It was a silly hate filled post that again tries to use the blood of dead children to paint a guilt trip on law abiding gun owners. I have no use for people who try to use dead children as a foil to advance their hate filled anti gun idiocy. And the parents of those children who try to salve their hurt by raping our rights are not going to get a pass for such behavior from me

I found the post from Moot to be both moving and truthful.

 

[TurtleDude]

Wow, thats says a lot. So you didn't think it was funny? I thought it was funny. Gun nuts just love to accessorize...so they could have the engraving on the guns match their tattoos. lol

Do you think the forefathers were stupid? Do you really believe they didn't know the difference between beating a child to death with your fists and arming a milita?

do you know what is idiotic? its your claims that you really don't want to ban guns and all you want is "reasonable" regulations. yet your posts are filled with venom and contempt of LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS

hint-when you want to pull the wool over peoples' eyes and pretend that all you want is to control crime, you are better off not constantly ridiculing and besmirching gun owners. When you engage in such hysterical insults it proves what I already know about you and your fellow travelers in the cult of hoplophobia. Your goals are to harass, belittle and inconvenience law abiding gun owners and your pitiful appeals to dead children etc are nothing but a facade designed to camouflage the true nature and motivation of your goals

 

[TurtleDude]

I found the post from Moot to be both moving and truthful.

That does not surprise me in the least. Your posts have demonstrated that your goal is to harass members of the "gun culture" most likely because members of that "culture" tend to oppose the goals of the party you work for and post in support of

 

[CRUE CAB]

Wow, thats says a lot. So you didn't think it was funny? I thought it was funny. Gun nuts just love to accessorize...so they could have the engraving on the guns match their tattoos. lol

Do you think the forefathers were stupid? Do you really believe they didn't know the difference between beating a child to death with your fists and arming a milita?

More children die from beating deaths than with guns.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I found the post from Moot to be both moving and truthful.

I found it, well. Moot. Its another Obama failure.

 

[TurtleDude]

More children die from beating deaths than with guns.

If the anti gun extremists believed that only COnservatives had fists, they would be concerned

 

[Goshin]

Think logically here, a nuclear weapon is considered an "arm" do you support Americans sitting with a missile or two in their back yard? There has to be limits and you and I both know that.

Please, let's not descend into sheer ridiculousity. Nukes are not part of this conversation, nor is nerve gas or weaponized anthrax. Those are strategic weapons systems and OBVIOUSLY beyond the scope of personal arms.

 

[cpgrad08]

Please, let's not descend into sheer ridiculousity. Nukes are not part of this conversation, nor is nerve gas or weaponized anthrax. Those are strategic weapons systems and OBVIOUSLY beyond the scope of personal arms.

Goshin we all know that you have a tactical nuke in the garage in-case the neighbor dog walks onto your lawn again. :lol:

 

[Captain Adverse]

A child haters lament....

Mocking the parents of dead children, calling the massacre a hoax, mocking the dead children on facebook, giving away free AR-15's, basturdizing the constitution, calling themselves the real victims, shutting down the debate with mocking, bullying and misinformation.....

"...Nothing says “I’m responsible enough to own a gun” than Republicans who mock the deaths of 20 first and second graders by raffling off AR-15s, the very gun used at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut...."
GOP giving away free AR-15 "Sandy Hook" rifles as pro-gun stunt

I am a second amendment proponent, even though I have never personally owned a gun in my entire life. During my ten years of military service I have qualified expert with several weapons and weapons systems (including the TOW and Dragon anti-armor systems); and was for a period certified to instruct the use of weapons (including black powder muskets).

I have never mocked the death of any person, and would find it foolish of anyone to do so. However, when it comes to negative statements concerning actions like this "give-away," I'd say it was pretty much an anti-gun spin used to raise emotional responses among anti-gun ownership proponents. Yes a gun was used to perform a horrific deed at Sandy Hook, but that is more a reflection on the person who used the tool, not the fact the tool itself existed.

I have the knowledge and the skill to create a home-made bomb out of common-use products I could buy from a combination of public stores. I guarantee that, depending on placement, such a bomb would do at least as much if not more damage than at Sandy Hook. I would never do this of course, because an action like that is not in my nature.

The mere fact that it is possible and that someone else might do it is not sufficient motive for me to blame the products and try to ban them. They have many good and proper uses outside the hands of a maniac. So do guns. I've never felt the need to own a gun so far; but I am glad to know that if I ever developed such a need I have the right to obtain and possess one.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Please, let's not descend into sheer ridiculousity. Nukes are not part of this conversation, nor is nerve gas or weaponized anthrax. Those are strategic weapons systems and OBVIOUSLY beyond the scope of personal arms.

It's the go to hyperbolic talking point apparently. It seems that when people are handed this talking point by the party it must be urged to start at a ridiculous extreme and negotiate down to a less ridiculous position by conflating the entire issue.

I guess it's time to kill this idiotic Democrat/Brady non-legal and fallacious bit of idiocy now.



People who use the "yeah but...........nuke argument." answer this series.
1) Is a nuclear/wmd device a crew served or individual weapon?
2) If a full auto misfires or is used in one area of a city, does it threaten the whole city or a at least a majority portion of it like a nuke? No redirects taken, this is yes or no.
3) If someone leaves an automatic weapon in the corner of a city, will it cause an imminent threat to the entire city of wholesale destruction?(really want to see how some anti-gunners **** this one up:lol
4) Is a nuclear device/WMD capable of multiple use?
5) Can you simply deploy a nuke/WMD/Area effective weapon with specific targets down to the individual by aiming, or do you have collateral damage? Very important point.

EDIT - The less negotiated extreme is actually more extreme, but apparently using the trite "what about nukes?" bull**** is to set it up as two things 1) An open door to allow for a restrictive precendent and 2) An extreme making another extreme look less extreme by comparison thus "not extreme". Now that I think of it, anti-gun arguments are the basically the "ugly friend" principle, when a girl is unattractive they tend to go out with less attractive friends to be "pretty by default" apparently the arguments of anti-gunners and statists are the same reasoning, my idea sucks so I'll package it in between worse suckage so it seems rational.