I was sitting in line waiting to get the family our bagels and this hit me.... This isn't a discussion. It's bomb throwing, from every side. No questions asked.... just some grammar policing and jabs from Ian. No.... Why or how come. No... tell me how you feel.... These seem like pretty basic necessities to have in a discussion. Do you really care how anyone really feels or do you just want to be smartest person in the room? Do you feel better about your position after attacking someone else's? With that said.....
I think Constitutional Carry may work in small town life and not so much in a big city environment. I believe that people make bad decisions everyday. We give people licenses to drive cars and some of those people make terrible choices who pur other people's lives at risk. Do we really need to also put guns in the hands of these types of people? I believe in states rights. I think they should decide on their laws based on the size of their population. We have the right to vote for the people who make these discussions and if I feel strongly enough I'll vote for or against.
@ShawnOL said:
Well Regulated: working properly or well.
As in "Well regulated sights" or "Well regulated clock".
Not regulated out of existence by slimy politicians or bureaucrats. You have to go by the meaning of speech in use at the time of the founding, not a hundred years later. The militia was not the national guard at that time.
Hey bro, don't come at me. I'm telling you what Mike told me on the vherf before he died. He was a guy who tried to form one legally and stopped the pursuit because it wasn't legal. What do you want from me? If you don't believe me, go form a fuçking militia and see how far you get.
It doesn't matter what any 2022 definition of any one phrase says, but nice try. Maybe you should go grab a dictionary from 1789. The nine constitutional lawyers have decided to follow the intent of the authors of the document when making decisions. I know they didn't clear that with you, but you'll have to take it up with them.
@Vision said:
I love the chickenshit lol with no response
Why would I take your post seriously? You pretended to be calling for reasonable and civil discussion while throwing a jab at me. It wasn't a post made in a genuine attempt to move forward.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
@Vision said:
I love the chickenshit lol with no response
Why would I take your post seriously? You pretended to be calling for reasonable and civil discussion while throwing a jab at me. It wasn't a post made in a genuine attempt to move forward.
It was. You're still wrong. You know for someone who talks allot about being brotherly.... you're really not.
@Vision said:
I was sitting in line waiting to get the family our bagels and this hit me.... This isn't a discussion. It's bomb throwing, from every side. No questions asked.... just some grammar policing and jabs from Ian. No.... Why or how come. No... tell me how you feel.... These seem like pretty basic necessities to have in a discussion. Do you really care how anyone really feels or do you just want to be smartest person in the room? Do you feel better about your position after attacking someone else's? With that said.....
I think Constitutional Carry may work in small town life and not so much in a big city environment. I believe that people make bad decisions everyday. We give people licenses to drive cars and some of those people make terrible choices who pur other people's lives at risk. Do we really need to also put guns in the hands of these types of people? I believe in states rights. I think they should decide on their laws based on the size of their population. We have the right to vote for the people who make these discussions and if I feel strongly enough I'll vote for or against.
I also believe in states rights, very strongly. But the 10th amendment only applies to laws outside of the constitution. So I'm relating your constitutional carry to states rights and you think you should be able to vote against it. However, the constitution in that situation trumps state rights related to 2nd amendment. I only assume that's what you were talking about. If not, I apologize and I'll go back in my hole.
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form." -- Winston Churchill "LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
@Vision said:
I was sitting in line waiting to get the family our bagels and this hit me.... This isn't a discussion. It's bomb throwing, from every side. No questions asked.... just some grammar policing and jabs from Ian. No.... Why or how come. No... tell me how you feel.... These seem like pretty basic necessities to have in a discussion. Do you really care how anyone really feels or do you just want to be smartest person in the room? Do you feel better about your position after attacking someone else's? With that said.....
I think Constitutional Carry may work in small town life and not so much in a big city environment. I believe that people make bad decisions everyday. We give people licenses to drive cars and some of those people make terrible choices who pur other people's lives at risk. Do we really need to also put guns in the hands of these types of people? I believe in states rights. I think they should decide on their laws based on the size of their population. We have the right to vote for the people who make these discussions and if I feel strongly enough I'll vote for or against.
I also believe in states rights, very strongly. But the 10th amendment only applies to laws outside of the constitution. So I'm relating your constitutional carry to states rights and you think you should be able to vote against it. However, the constitution in that situation trumps state rights related to 2nd amendment. I only assume that's what you were talking about. If not, I apologize and I'll go back in my hole.
I was saying I would vote for the people who make the laws.... from the top down.... National to local. I never said to vote against it. That if I cared enough I would vote the person.
@ShawnOL said:
Well Regulated: working properly or well.
As in "Well regulated sights" or "Well regulated clock".
Not regulated out of existence by slimy politicians or bureaucrats. You have to go by the meaning of speech in use at the time of the founding, not a hundred years later. The militia was not the national guard at that time.
Hey bro, don't come at me. I'm telling you what Mike told me on the vherf before he died. He was a guy who tried to form one legally and stopped the pursuit because it wasn't legal. What do you want from me? If you don't believe me, go form a fuçking militia and see how far you get.
It doesn't matter what any 2022 definition of any one phrase says, but nice try. Maybe you should go grab a dictionary from 1789. The nine constitutional lawyers have decided to follow the intent of the authors of the document when making decisions. I know they didn't clear that with you, but you'll have to take it up with them.
Not coming at you, Frank. Just stating a fact about the wording of the 2A. I know you can't organize your own militia. You can't appoint people to lead such organization, make up your own uniforms, etc. But we are ALL part of the unorganized militia, able to join the national guard or the full-time standing army. Sorry if I made you think I was calling you out.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
@ShawnOL said:
Well Regulated: working properly or well.
As in "Well regulated sights" or "Well regulated clock".
Not regulated out of existence by slimy politicians or bureaucrats. You have to go by the meaning of speech in use at the time of the founding, not a hundred years later. The militia was not the national guard at that time.
Hey bro, don't come at me. I'm telling you what Mike told me on the vherf before he died. He was a guy who tried to form one legally and stopped the pursuit because it wasn't legal. What do you want from me? If you don't believe me, go form a fuçking militia and see how far you get.
It doesn't matter what any 2022 definition of any one phrase says, but nice try. Maybe you should go grab a dictionary from 1789. The nine constitutional lawyers have decided to follow the intent of the authors of the document when making decisions. I know they didn't clear that with you, but you'll have to take it up with them.
Not coming at you, Frank. Just stating a fact about the wording of the 2A. I know you can't organize your own militia. You can't appoint people to lead such organization, make up your own uniforms, etc. But we are ALL part of the unorganized militia, able to join the national guard or the full-time standing army. Sorry if I made you think I was calling you out.
This touches on the sore point I had with what Frank presented. Not with Frank, who as usual has presented a well thought out post, but with the logic that is being upheld by the courts.
If you think about it, what the courts are saying boils down to this:
The 2nd amendment provides that certain individuals who've been screened and selected and trained by and are employed by the government are allowed to own and carry weapons with which to carry out the orders of said government.
I'm not buying it. I don't believe that was the original intent, nor do I believe that it represents any logical extension of the original intent, nor the spirit of freedom for the citizen meant to be upheld by the Constitution.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I don't know about all of that. From the constitution:
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Section 8 (congressional powers):
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Dude, congress is the only ones that can arm them...that last bolded statement says it all. Militias are state run and fed owned....
That's the national guard in a nutshell. Hard to argue "not their intent"
Good points. Now I am thinking about the phrasing that includes right to be secure in their persons etc.
Have to think about it for awhile. It may be that the common sense interpretations we grew up with were phantasm and not actually rights in our possession.
Interesting information.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I apologize if the following thoughts are somewhat hazy. My Covid test was + the other day, and my brain is somewhat foggy. OK, it's always a little foggy, but worse than usual.
We have been taught a number of things about the Constitution and the history behind it that are generally commonly accepted knowledge and considered true. For instance, the 2nd amendment falls under a section known as "The Bill of Rights". These were understood to be the rights of the citizenry, NOT the rights of the government, in fact, it is generally understood, and I believe specified somewhere, that the rights enumerated in the entire constitution are there as limits to the governments rights, and that any rights not enumerated remained to the people, given by God, and were not to be infringed upon by the government.
Is this not correct?
Therefore, while the sections of the constitution outlined above do indeed proscribe an outline of the governments role in managing and equipping the Militia, should the need arise, the wording of the 2nd amendment, "...the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited..." are referring to the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, while the language Frank has posted above refers to the powers of the government to call upon that armed citizenry in times of needs, and details the specific powers and limits of those powers.
Thus, the government role in equipping and managing such standing militia is defined, while not limiting the God given rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms with the understanding that the purpose of that right is to provide the citizenry with the means to defend itself at a local level from whatever threats may be posed that the government was unable or unwilling to protect the lawful peace and order of that community or individual from.
Oh, and it doesn't specify that Congress shall be the ONLY ones to arm the militia, only that they are allowed to do so if needed.
Anyone else with any thoughts on the subject?
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Yeah, I've been watching this very closely. Apparently the commies made it a requirement that anyone wishing to exercise their rights must first obtain permission (a purchase permit) before they may do so, also requiring training as part of it. Unfortunately no such license exists and the state police are tasked with creating a permit system. No such training classes, as required by the new law, currently exist and the police have to figure out how the peasants are going to be tested and by who.
The cost of all of this is not being paid for by the state. The administrative costs will come out of police department budgets. Many smaller departments will have to pull officers off of street patrol to operate their new permitting dept.
The deadline is days away and these decisions have not been made yet. As of December 8, all sales will come to a halt since no permit or training classes exist yet.
Another part of the referendum was an assault weapon ban ( basically any design since World War 2) and any standard capacity magazine holding more that ten rounds. All such magazines, of which there are millions of, must be shipped out of state or destroyed. Anyone keeping possession of their legally bought magazines will be prosecuted.
Oregon has a hard-on for California, and other commie states, and won't stop until they are exactly like them.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
"...and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."
Doesn't that "may" mean the militia does not necessarily need to be employed, or owned, by the government?
Yeah I think this is more part of the problem than the solution. I'm not saying you're wrong, but everyone focuses on the single work to spin their argument. I think that the point is to take the article as a whole and stay true to the original intent...or intentionally change that intent through a further amendment.
I agree with the @Amos_Umwhat incoherency...which I found to be very lucid, by the way!
@silvermouse said:
Not a whole lot different than what Massachusetts requires, except for the planning ahead part.
Edit, disclaimer: I don't think I am well informed about this, when my local police supplied fid wasn't enough I decided it wasn't worth pursuing.
Actually, Edward, this is a permit to purchase. Every time you want to buy a gun you must apply for a permit and take the class. Designed to keep people from exercising their rights. Much like you, many won't jump the bureaucratic hoops. That's the feature, not the bug.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
@ShawnOL said:
He's still allowed to drive? Scary.
No, they put a large screen and a fan in front of the car, and then someone brings him an ice cream cone. He thinks he drove downtown to the ice cream shop. Then they tuck him in bed, and he's happy.
Comments
I was sitting in line waiting to get the family our bagels and this hit me.... This isn't a discussion. It's bomb throwing, from every side. No questions asked.... just some grammar policing and jabs from Ian. No.... Why or how come. No... tell me how you feel.... These seem like pretty basic necessities to have in a discussion. Do you really care how anyone really feels or do you just want to be smartest person in the room? Do you feel better about your position after attacking someone else's? With that said.....
I think Constitutional Carry may work in small town life and not so much in a big city environment. I believe that people make bad decisions everyday. We give people licenses to drive cars and some of those people make terrible choices who pur other people's lives at risk. Do we really need to also put guns in the hands of these types of people? I believe in states rights. I think they should decide on their laws based on the size of their population. We have the right to vote for the people who make these discussions and if I feel strongly enough I'll vote for or against.
My little friend is never far away.
I love the chickenshit lol with no response
Hey bro, don't come at me. I'm telling you what Mike told me on the vherf before he died. He was a guy who tried to form one legally and stopped the pursuit because it wasn't legal. What do you want from me? If you don't believe me, go form a fuçking militia and see how far you get.
It doesn't matter what any 2022 definition of any one phrase says, but nice try. Maybe you should go grab a dictionary from 1789. The nine constitutional lawyers have decided to follow the intent of the authors of the document when making decisions. I know they didn't clear that with you, but you'll have to take it up with them.
Why would I take your post seriously? You pretended to be calling for reasonable and civil discussion while throwing a jab at me. It wasn't a post made in a genuine attempt to move forward.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
It was. You're still wrong. You know for someone who talks allot about being brotherly.... you're really not.
I also believe in states rights, very strongly. But the 10th amendment only applies to laws outside of the constitution. So I'm relating your constitutional carry to states rights and you think you should be able to vote against it. However, the constitution in that situation trumps state rights related to 2nd amendment. I only assume that's what you were talking about. If not, I apologize and I'll go back in my hole.
-- Winston Churchill
"LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
I was saying I would vote for the people who make the laws.... from the top down.... National to local. I never said to vote against it. That if I cared enough I would vote the person.
It seems you and I are at an impasse, Pete. I'm going to let my end of this rope go and move along.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
Not coming at you, Frank. Just stating a fact about the wording of the 2A. I know you can't organize your own militia. You can't appoint people to lead such organization, make up your own uniforms, etc. But we are ALL part of the unorganized militia, able to join the national guard or the full-time standing army. Sorry if I made you think I was calling you out.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
This touches on the sore point I had with what Frank presented. Not with Frank, who as usual has presented a well thought out post, but with the logic that is being upheld by the courts.
If you think about it, what the courts are saying boils down to this:
The 2nd amendment provides that certain individuals who've been screened and selected and trained by and are employed by the government are allowed to own and carry weapons with which to carry out the orders of said government.
I'm not buying it. I don't believe that was the original intent, nor do I believe that it represents any logical extension of the original intent, nor the spirit of freedom for the citizen meant to be upheld by the Constitution.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
The national guard is much closer bound to the standing army, than the original intent of the militia.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
@Amos_Umwhat @d_blades
I don't know about all of that. From the constitution:
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Section 8 (congressional powers):
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Dude, congress is the only ones that can arm them...that last bolded statement says it all. Militias are state run and fed owned....
That's the national guard in a nutshell. Hard to argue "not their intent"
Good points. Now I am thinking about the phrasing that includes right to be secure in their persons etc.
Have to think about it for awhile. It may be that the common sense interpretations we grew up with were phantasm and not actually rights in our possession.
Interesting information.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I apologize if the following thoughts are somewhat hazy. My Covid test was + the other day, and my brain is somewhat foggy. OK, it's always a little foggy, but worse than usual.
We have been taught a number of things about the Constitution and the history behind it that are generally commonly accepted knowledge and considered true. For instance, the 2nd amendment falls under a section known as "The Bill of Rights". These were understood to be the rights of the citizenry, NOT the rights of the government, in fact, it is generally understood, and I believe specified somewhere, that the rights enumerated in the entire constitution are there as limits to the governments rights, and that any rights not enumerated remained to the people, given by God, and were not to be infringed upon by the government.
Is this not correct?
Therefore, while the sections of the constitution outlined above do indeed proscribe an outline of the governments role in managing and equipping the Militia, should the need arise, the wording of the 2nd amendment, "...the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited..." are referring to the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, while the language Frank has posted above refers to the powers of the government to call upon that armed citizenry in times of needs, and details the specific powers and limits of those powers.
Thus, the government role in equipping and managing such standing militia is defined, while not limiting the God given rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms with the understanding that the purpose of that right is to provide the citizenry with the means to defend itself at a local level from whatever threats may be posed that the government was unable or unwilling to protect the lawful peace and order of that community or individual from.
Oh, and it doesn't specify that Congress shall be the ONLY ones to arm the militia, only that they are allowed to do so if needed.
Anyone else with any thoughts on the subject?
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I often hear the Oath Keepers described as a militia, usually by what I would consider left leaning outfits like NPR, Wiki, SPLC, is that a misnomer?
This part of what @VegasFrank posted stood out to me.
"...and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."
Doesn't that "may" mean the militia does not necessarily need to be employed, or owned, by the government?
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
https://www.foxnews.com/us/firearm-sales-explode-oregon-awaits-judges-decision-gun-control-law
Yeah, I've been watching this very closely. Apparently the commies made it a requirement that anyone wishing to exercise their rights must first obtain permission (a purchase permit) before they may do so, also requiring training as part of it. Unfortunately no such license exists and the state police are tasked with creating a permit system. No such training classes, as required by the new law, currently exist and the police have to figure out how the peasants are going to be tested and by who.
The cost of all of this is not being paid for by the state. The administrative costs will come out of police department budgets. Many smaller departments will have to pull officers off of street patrol to operate their new permitting dept.
The deadline is days away and these decisions have not been made yet. As of December 8, all sales will come to a halt since no permit or training classes exist yet.
Another part of the referendum was an assault weapon ban ( basically any design since World War 2) and any standard capacity magazine holding more that ten rounds. All such magazines, of which there are millions of, must be shipped out of state or destroyed. Anyone keeping possession of their legally bought magazines will be prosecuted.
Oregon has a hard-on for California, and other commie states, and won't stop until they are exactly like them.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
Not a whole lot different than what Massachusetts requires, except for the planning ahead part.
Edit, disclaimer: I don't think I am well informed about this, when my local police supplied fid wasn't enough I decided it wasn't worth pursuing.
Yeah I think this is more part of the problem than the solution. I'm not saying you're wrong, but everyone focuses on the single work to spin their argument. I think that the point is to take the article as a whole and stay true to the original intent...or intentionally change that intent through a further amendment.
I agree with the @Amos_Umwhat incoherency...which I found to be very lucid, by the way!
Actually, Edward, this is a permit to purchase. Every time you want to buy a gun you must apply for a permit and take the class. Designed to keep people from exercising their rights. Much like you, many won't jump the bureaucratic hoops. That's the feature, not the bug.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
And then there's the distinction between a President having classified docs, and a VP having them. Yuge.
I mean they were in a locked garage with his corvette.
To be clear the same garage he keeps his corvette in is where they were and he locks it.
He's still allowed to drive? Scary.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
No, they put a large screen and a fan in front of the car, and then someone brings him an ice cream cone. He thinks he drove downtown to the ice cream shop. Then they tuck him in bed, and he's happy.
They all suck!