[QUOTE=Leon;49239510]well regulated in the 1700s-1800s referred to something that was in working order
in regards to the 2nd amendment, well regulated refers to a functional militia (composed of the people who possess their own arms). it does not mean that they have government regulations imposed upon them
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
jack flash beat me, god bless him
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
imposing government regulations on the 2nd amendment isn't up to the states or federal government
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
the 2nd amendment was not intended to be regulated away and neither were any other amendments in the bill of rights because thats foolish[/QUOTE]
It implies that the people ARE the militia, which if not well-regulated (that is trained in the proper use of their fire-arms), is just asking for trouble. With the way it's written, it's clear that the founding fathers were aware of this. They weren't stupid. If it simply meant "a militia" or that literally ANYBODY should own a gun, they would've said so without inclusion of the term "regulated", much less well regulated.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237182]Background checks are a responsibility that they adopted and something I think it's fair to expect them to do in a timely manner, not whenever they get around to it or not at all if they can't be bothered.[/QUOTE]
I have argued this point with you over and over again, so I'll try it once more:
[highlight]FILL. IN. THE. CRACKS. IN. THE. CUR. RENT. SYS. TEM.[/highlight]
Jesus riding Mary on a rocket-powered pogo-stick, dude.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49239617]It implies that the people ARE the militia, which if not well-regulated (that is trained in the proper use of their fire-arms), is just asking for trouble. With the way it's written, it's clear that the founding fathers were aware of this. They weren't stupid. If it simply meant "a militia" or that literally ANYBODY should own a gun, they would've said so without inclusion of the term "regulated", much less well regulated.[/QUOTE]This has been covered several times in the posts above, you're misunderstanding the wording and the usage of "regulated."
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49239617]I have argued this point with you over and over again, so I'll try it once more:
[highlight]FILL. IN. THE. CRACKS. IN. THE. CUR. RENT. SYS. TEM.[/highlight]
Jesus riding Mary on a rocket-powered pogo-stick, dude.[/QUOTE]Okay. Currently the cracks are all from the existing laws being mostly unenforced and the system being ignored by the actual government. You brought up the actual words that make up the FBI's full name, the "Federal Bureau of [I]Investigation[/I]" was how you put it, I believe. Thing about that though is background checks [U]are[/U] an investigation, they're probably the most common one performed in this country. I think making it so the FBI actually does it's job would be a good place to start if you want to "fill in the cracks."
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49239617]It implies that the people ARE the militia, which if not well-regulated (that is trained in the proper use of their fire-arms), is just asking for trouble. With the way it's written, it's clear that the founding fathers were aware of this. They weren't stupid. If it simply meant "a militia" or that literally ANYBODY should own a gun, they would've said so without inclusion of the term "regulated", much less well regulated.[/QUOTE]
"Well regulated" has nothing to do with proper training. It was meant to be a stop on the government from restricting arms to the point that "the militia" was no longer functional. It was to stop the government from saying "You can only own flint lock muskets" while arming themselves with M16s. It was to ensure that the militia would always be able to have enough power and venom to be able to strike at the government at any time.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49239767]"Well regulated" has nothing to do with proper training. It was meant to be a stop on the government from restricting arms to the point that "the militia" was no longer functional. It was to stop the government from saying "You can only own flint lock muskets" while arming themselves with M16s. It was to ensure that the militia would always be able to have enough power and venom to be able to strike at the government at any time.[/QUOTE]
Well if that's your interpretation of it, then I guess the point is lost on you. It makes no sense that they would mandate that anybody, no matter how qualified/capable, should own a fire-arm. Especially considering how dangerous they were back then to the USER.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49239753]This has been covered several times in the posts above, you're misunderstanding the wording and the usage of "regulated."
Okay. Currently the cracks are all from the existing laws being mostly unenforced and the system being ignored by the actual government. You brought up the actual words that make up the FBI's full name, the "Federal Bureau of [I]Investigation[/I]" was how you put it, I believe. Thing about that though is background checks [U]are[/U] an investigation, they're probably the most common one performed in this country. I think making it so the FBI actually does it's job would be a good place to start if you want to "fill in the cracks."[/QUOTE]
How am I misunderstanding the wording and usage of "regulated" in an official government document? They chose their wording very carefully, and they don't typically write legal documents in a poetic fashion.
Obviously you guys seem to wish to imply that the founding fathers had no concept of language, or what "regulate" means, so here it is for you (and them, I guess):
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate[/url]
And yes, I've seen your post about what "well regulated" allegedly means based on some snippets of writing from that period. That doesn't mean that "well-adjusted" means that someone properly calibrated someone's head. (and congratulations on posting what is essentially a blog opinion piece as a cited source, BTW)
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49239617]It implies that the people ARE the militia, which if not well-regulated (that is trained in the proper use of their fire-arms), is just asking for trouble. With the way it's written, it's clear that the founding fathers were aware of this. They weren't stupid. If it simply meant "a militia" or that literally ANYBODY should own a gun, they would've said so without inclusion of the term "regulated", much less well regulated.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
I have argued this point with you over and over again, so I'll try it once more:
[highlight]FILL. IN. THE. CRACKS. IN. THE. CUR. RENT. SYS. TEM.[/highlight]
Jesus riding Mary on a rocket-powered pogo-stick, dude.[/QUOTE]
Exactly how the hell is requiring part of the system to do its job in order to allow the current system to work [I]not filling in the fucking cracks?[/I] Felons are actively obtaining firearms from retailers because the FBI ignores FFLs requesting background checks on them. It's not because they're swamped or because it takes a while or any bullshit like that; mine have all been instant. [B]It's because they don't bother to.[/B] Ergo, [B]requiring them to[/B] is a step to fill in the cracks. Holy shit.
I'm not one to get all ~ad hominem~ in a debate but arguing with you? I might as well be trying to convince a llama not to grow wool.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49239843]Exactly how the hell is requiring part of the system to do its job in order to allow the current system to work [I]not filling in the fucking cracks?[/I] Felons are actively obtaining firearms from retailers because the FBI ignores FFLs requesting background checks on them. It's not because they're swamped or because it takes a while or any bullshit like that; mine have all been instant. [B]It's because they don't bother to.[/B] Ergo, [B]requiring them to[/B] is a step to fill in the cracks. Holy shit.
I'm not one to get all ~ad hominem~ in a debate but arguing with you? I might as well be trying to convince a llama.[/QUOTE]
Because [B]that's what I've been saying this whole god-damned time: Require them to do their god-damned job and if they can't, then god-damn fix it.[/B]
Can you read? Like, at all? Because at this point I'm starting to suspect you're a [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate]WAYWO project[/url] gone rogue. I've said MULTIPLE TIMES that they NEED TO DO BACKGROUND CHECKS, and if they CAN'T DO THAT, I've explained THAT we need to FIX it as well as HOW TO FIX THAT, by getting a piece of GOD-DAMNED paper, a GOD-DAMNED pen, a GOD-DAMNED envelope and a GOD-DAMNED stamp, so you can write a GOD-DAMNED letter (or if you're more modern you can skip all that GOD-DAMNED bullshit and send a GOD-DAMNED email if you prefer) to your GOD-DAMNED elected officials so they can do their GOD-DAMNED job and try to fix the GOD-DAMNED flaws in the current GOD-DAMNED system.
I honestly don't know how to break it down into simpler god-damned English for you, dude.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49239799]How am I misunderstanding the wording and usage of "regulated" in an official government document? They chose their wording very carefully, and they don't typically write legal documents in a poetic fashion.[/QUOTE]You clearly have no clue as to how people wrote back then, and really because of that you don't know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49239799]Obviously you guys seem to wish to imply that the founding fathers had no concept of language, or what "regulate" means, so here it is for you (and them, I guess):
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate[/url][/QUOTE][QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49239467]You have to remember that this was written in the 1700's, they used what we would refer to as "legalese" now in the document. Actually because of ambiguity like this [B]([U]certain[/U] [U]usages[/U] of words dropping out of favor, etc)[/B] it's the reason why laws are specifically written in a certain way and why it looks convoluted compared to our everyday vernacular.[/QUOTE]I have put the important part in bold, underlined for emphasis.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49239799]And yes, I've seen your post about what "well regulated" allegedly means based on some snippets of writing from that period. That doesn't mean that "well-adjusted" means that someone properly calibrated someone's head. (and congratulations on posting what is essentially a blog opinion piece as a cited source, BTW)[/QUOTE]If you saw it and didn't understand it then I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to explain it. You clearly are either missing the meaning of what's being said or you're just arguing for the hell of it; either way I can't help you.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49239975]You clearly have no clue as to how people wrote back then, and really because of that you don't know what you're talking about.[/quote]
Then please, educate me with some material that isn't from an opinion page.
[quote]I have put the important part in bold, underlined for emphasis.[/quote]
More on this in a bit.
[quote]If you saw it and didn't understand it then I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to explain it. You clearly are either missing the meaning of what's being said or you're just arguing for the hell of it; either way I can't help you.[/QUOTE]
The only thing being missed here is how the bit you quoted was dismantled on literally the same page. But if that doesn't convince you:
[quote=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/25/1173770/-What-IS-a-well-regulated-militia]What does "well regulated" mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that
the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.[/quote]
And in case that site is too biased or whatever reason you can concoct:
[quote=]There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; [b]but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered[/b], and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[97][98]
In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:
[b]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.[99][/b] [/quote]
It's nowhere near as convoluted as modern legaleze, but there it is, clear as day, black and white (or blue in this case), clear as crystal.
Letting just anybody walk into a store and buy a gun because they've been on good behavior up until that point isn't an imposition of proper discipline and competency in its use. It's not the type of wording that removes your right to own a fire-arm entirely, and it's not the type of wording that guarantees you can have a fire-arm, it literally means "so long as you're disciplined and properly trained", which even fits in with the examples from the opinion piece you posted, which sites Oxford (for instance, the example that states "her well-regulated mind" implies she was well disciplined).
If you think requiring proper training and certification is an infringement on YOUR rights, then you probably aren't competent enough to own a fire-arm. If you are, then you have nothing to worry about because you'll breeze through whatever course you have to take. Stop interpreting licensing as a bogeyman.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49239924]Because [B]that's what I've been saying this whole god-damned time: Require them to do their god-damned job and if they can't, then god-damn fix it.[/B]
Can you read? Like, at all? Because at this point I'm starting to suspect you're a [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate]WAYWO project[/url] gone rogue. I've said MULTIPLE TIMES that they NEED TO DO BACKGROUND CHECKS, and if they CAN'T DO THAT, I've explained THAT we need to FIX it as well as HOW TO FIX THAT, by getting a piece of GOD-DAMNED paper, a GOD-DAMNED pen, a GOD-DAMNED envelope and a GOD-DAMNED stamp, so you can write a GOD-DAMNED letter (or if you're more modern you can skip all that GOD-DAMNED bullshit and send a GOD-DAMNED email if you prefer) to your GOD-DAMNED elected officials so they can do their GOD-DAMNED job and try to fix the GOD-DAMNED flaws in the current GOD-DAMNED system.
I honestly don't know how to break it down into simpler god-damned English for you, dude.[/QUOTE]
Lmfao
Our first interaction in this thread was you responding to me suggesting requiring the FBI to do their job with "why not remove the 3 day response period instead so we can have indefinite waiting periods wow deal with it you impatient titty baby"
How can you be this disconnected and incapable of communication?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240265]Lmfao
Our first interaction in this thread was you responding to me suggesting requiring the FBI to do their job with "why not remove the 3 day response period instead so we can have indefinite waiting periods wow deal with it you impatient titty baby"[/QUOTE]
YOU LITERALLY JUST-
Look. I said it right there in the fucking quote you just quoted. Clearly you CAN'T read after all. I NEVER suggested indefinite waiting periods, I even suggested making changes to the system so the waiting periods are a non-fucking-issue. I said you were impatient because apparantley waiting more than three days for a gun is just too god-damned long for some people, and the whole "well this is taking an awfully long while, so here's your gun" system is flawed because all you have to do is wait it out and POOF!, you have a gun! Whether or not you had shit in your background, purely because it simply took too long for the FBI to get around to making sure you're not violent before granting you access to a human perforation apparatus, and I even suggested MULTIPLE GOD-DAMNED TIMES how you can go about fixing it.
You seem incredibly fixated on the titty-baby comment, which I agree was out of line and I even remedied it as a condition to lift the ban I earned for it, and it wasn't even intended to refer to you directly, get over yourself.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49240336]YOU LITERALLY JUST-
Look. I said it right there in the fucking quote you just quoted. Clearly you CAN'T read after all. I NEVER suggested indefinite waiting periods, I even suggested making changes to the system so the waiting periods are a non-fucking-issue. I said you were impatient because apparantley waiting more than 3 days for a gun is just too god-damned long for some people, and the whole "three days and it's a done deal, here's your consolation prize: A .50 Desert Eagle" system is flawed because all you have to do is wait it out and POOF!, you have a gun! Whether or not you had shit in your background, purely because it simply took too long for the FBI to get around to making sure you're not violent before granting you access to a human perforation apparatus.[/QUOTE]
The post of mine that you initially responded to was saying that after a 3 day waiting period if the FBI has not responded to your background check, it goes through, and that's [B]bad[/B], ergo the FBI should be required [B]by law[/B] to [B]do its fucking job[/B] and you went off on a tangent about impatience or some shit and got banned for flaming. What the hell is wrong with you? You have the communication skills of a fucking brick and not a particularly clever one.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240353]The post of mine that you initially responded to was saying that after a 3 day waiting period if the FBI has not responded to your background check, it goes through, and that's [B]bad[/B], ergo the FBI should be required [B]by law[/B] to [B]do its fucking job[/B] and you went off on a tangent about impatience or some shit. What the hell is wrong with you? You have the communication skills of a fucking brick and not a particularly clever one.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't speaking directly to you, I was speaking in context of who the fuck ever thought that just forgoing the check after three days was a good idea. If you had nothing to do with that part of the process then you have no reason to have such a bug up your ass about what I said. SHEESH.
Holy shit you are unplugged, you are making me question whether or not it really is a good idea to have ready access to firearms. Congrats, you're proving your point, but maybe not in the way you wanted.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49240148]Then please, educate me with some material that isn't from an opinion page.[/QUOTE]I guess the only way to satisfy you is to build a time machine so you can ask them yourself. It's how the word was used back then, the guy took the quotes from the [B]Oxford fucking Dictionary[/B] that was in print at the time. Since you don't consider the Oxford Dictionary or historical fact as relevant, I really have nothing further to say to you regarding this.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49240148]If you think requiring proper training and certification is an infringement on YOUR rights, then you probably aren't competent enough to own a fire-arm. If you are, then you have nothing to worry about because you'll breeze through whatever course you have to take. Stop interpreting licensing as a bogeyman.[/QUOTE]???? When did I ever talk about licenses today? Let's run with it, here's my quote from another thread:[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49222503]Honestly? At this point? I'm in favor of dropping all restrictions on guns and shifting all that focus on completely free education for mandatory ownership IDs that are only restricted by the same guidelines used now to prevent people from getting a firearm, such as violent felons and the mentally unstable. The purpose of that training would be so they could properly exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. We have an education system already that is by design geared toward making sure people's 1st Amendment rights can be properly exercised, right? This would be across the board, no state-by-state shit, everyone's got the same rules and the same conditions so goodbye nanny state laws in all those vehemently anti-gun states. I mean the NICS is already a de facto check to see if you are allowed your 2nd Amendment rights, so as far as I'm concerned this isn't any different than that aside from making sure everyone who has guns is educated and capable.
I think that settles it on both sides, but I can guarantee that once anti-gun people realize the stupid feel-good legislation goes away and everyone can legally own big scary black rifles with drum magazines and bayonets they'll refuse.
Which is why gun owners refuse to budge further, we've already moved enough.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49240400]I guess the only way to satisfy you is to build a time machine so you can ask them yourself. It's how the word was used back then, the guy took the quotes from the [B]Oxford fucking Dictionary[/B] that was in print at the time. Since you don't consider the Oxford Dictionary or historical fact as relevant, I really have nothing further to say to you regarding this.[/quote]
I already explained how the wording is relevant with the information I quoted. (the bit about the Articles and other such fancy words)
[quote] "so long as you're disciplined and properly trained", which even fits in with the examples from the opinion piece you posted, which sites Oxford (for instance, the example that states "her well-regulated mind" implies she was well disciplined).[/quote]
^ Literally RIGHT THERE. ^
[quote]???? When did I ever talk about licenses today? Let's run with it, here's my quote from another thread:[/QUOTE]
Then why in the fresh hell are you even arguing with me on the topic if we're in arguing for the same fucking thing?
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240393]Holy shit you are unplugged, you are making me question whether or not it really is a good idea to have ready access to firearms. Congrats, you're proving your point, but maybe not in the way you wanted.[/QUOTE]
How am I unplugged? You took a general statement and applied it directly to yourself.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49240451]I already explained how the wording is relevant with the information I quoted. (the bit about the Articles and other such fancy words)
Then why in the fresh hell are you even arguing with me on the topic if we're in arguing for the same fucking thing?
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
How am I unplugged? You took a general statement and applied it directly to yourself.[/QUOTE]
You can't make a "general statement" in direct response to someone via a quote, argue with them about it for several pages, and then say "oh i wasn't talking to you"
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240488]You can't make a "general statement" in direct response to someone via a quote, argue with them about it for several pages, and then say "oh i wasn't talking to you"[/QUOTE]
I quoted you merely to provide context. Again, get over yourself.
Obviously we're both somewhat in the same line of thought on the subject despite how it's been presented, and there's clearly been a mis-understanding, so for the sake of preventing further de-railment let's just drop it.
This entire page is full of partial stupidity from at least everyone, we should probably stop this silly shit.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
That sentence is convoluted but I don't care, it's staying. It's beautiful the way it was born and doesn't need to change goddamn it.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49240568][B]This entire page is full of partial stupidity from at least everyone, we should probably stop this silly shit[/B].
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
That sentence is convoluted but I don't care, it's staying. It's beautiful the way it was born and doesn't need to change goddamn it.[/QUOTE]
yea
arguments over gun control are irrelevant anyways to topic
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49240148]Then please, educate me with some material that isn't from an opinion page.
More on this in a bit.
The only thing being missed here is how the bit you quoted was dismantled on literally the same page. But if that doesn't convince you:
And in case that site is too biased or whatever reason you can concoct:
It's nowhere near as convoluted as modern legaleze, but there it is, clear as day, black and white (or blue in this case), clear as crystal.
Letting just anybody walk into a store and buy a gun because they've been on good behavior up until that point isn't an imposition of proper discipline and competency in its use. It's not the type of wording that removes your right to own a fire-arm entirely, and it's not the type of wording that guarantees you can have a fire-arm, it literally means "so long as you're disciplined and properly trained", which even fits in with the examples from the opinion piece you posted, which sites Oxford (for instance, the example that states "her well-regulated mind" implies she was well disciplined).
If you think requiring proper training and certification is an infringement on YOUR rights, then you probably aren't competent enough to own a fire-arm. If you are, then you have nothing to worry about because you'll breeze through whatever course you have to take. Stop interpreting licensing as a bogeyman.[/QUOTE]
Prefatory Clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, from reading a breakdown of DC vs Keller here:
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=heller&url=/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html[/url]
[QUOTE](a) [B]The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.[/B] The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. [B]The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.[/B] Pp. 22–28. [/QUOTE]
So, since the second amendment's prefatory clause is just a reason for the operative clause, it does not impose conditions upon the operative clause. In fact, your interpretation flies right in the face of the intentions for putting the prefatory clause in there according to the anti-federalist papers.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49238530][IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/965202/ShareX/2015/12/2015-12-03_13-56-36.png[/IMG]
I haven't been keeping up with the news, but even if this isn't mental health, we can make the case that it's tied to some form of terrorism, and we can and should talk about the cause, not just the symptoms.[/QUOTE]
The statement that most or all gun massacres are committed by those with mental disorders has nothing to do with the statement that most people with mental disorders do not go on shooting massacres. Like I'm making X to Y point and he's making A to B.
[QUOTE=Leon;49240632]yea
arguments over gun control are irrelevant anyways to topic[/QUOTE]
Yeah okay let's go back to pointless speculation
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49240148]Then please, educate me with some material that isn't from an opinion page.[/QUOTE]
Will Constitution.Org suffice?
[url]http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49239426]My bad, all I remembered off the top of my head was it was some sort of nitrate.
But you're seriously calling training/licensing "infringement"? So you WANT people who haven't the slightest clue or sliver of responsibility to own and operate a firearm, simply because "it's their right"?
By that logic, why do we even bother with back-ground checks? That's infringement of their rights! Just let ANYBODY buy a gun, it's their right! Mentally ill? Convicted felon? Sure, why the hell not? It's their right, after all! Fire-arms for everybody!
On that note I'm going to assume you're not familiar with the phrase "my rights end where the other fellow's nose begins".
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
People argue that gun ownership is key in case of a tyrannical government, which would require militia intervention, which means the gun owners.[/QUOTE]
I actually am familiar with that phrase, it's a favorite of mine. The gun in my hand, as long as it's not aimed at your nose, does not touch or threaten your nose.
And yes, I do not think any training or licensing should be required. As it stands, most people who buy guns seek some form of training on their own.
We bother with background checks and licenses to carry, because of many past concessions and compromises with your group. But you gun grabbers are never bloody happy. I don't want anyone telling you how powerful of a computer you can buy or build, or what software you can download-why not extend me the same courtesy?
[QUOTE=Ridge;49242470]Will Constitution.Org suffice?
[url]http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
That source is not impartial by any means, and the thing you quoted is actually from an e-mail someone sent to that site. Just saying.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;49242490]I actually am familiar with that phrase, it's a favorite of mine. The gun in my hand, as long as it's not aimed at your nose, does not touch or threaten your nose.
And yes, I do not think any training or licensing should be required. As it stands, most people who buy guns seek some form of training on their own.
We bother with background checks and licenses to carry, because of many past concessions and compromises with your group. But you gun grabbers are never bloody happy. I don't want anyone telling you how powerful of a computer you can buy or build, or what software you can download-why not extend me the same courtesy?[/QUOTE]
Now you're calling me a gun-grabber, because I want a licensing system that ensures that the chuckle-fucks legally buying a gun can be considered competent enough to know what the hell they're doing with their new purchase? You guys have a serious persecution complex, you know that?
I come from a gun family, and while I don't personally care much for fire-arms, the LAST thing I want is mass gun confiscation because I am well-fucking-aware of what could happen as a result.
BUT, if you SERIOUSLY think a viable solution, considering how many dipshits there are in this country that don't appear competent enough to operate a TV remote, much less a gun, is to make guns EVEN EASIER to get for ANYBODY, is absolutely insane. Licensing != "We're coming to take your guns, try and stop me, Shitlord!" (spoiler alert: you can. That's why you have a [B]FUCKING[/B] gun, remember?!)
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;49242470]Will Constitution.Org suffice?
[url]http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
I've already provided links that show what "well-regulated" means in the given context, just because it doesn't fit your view on what you [I]think[/I] "well-regulated" means (in this case it means [highlight]DISCIPLINED[/highlight]. EVEN THE EXAMPLES PROVIDED BY THE OXFORD-FUCKING-DICTIONARY FROM THAT TIME FRAME CONFIRM THIS AS I'VE ALREADY SHOWN, and the Supreme Court even agreed in 2008), either way you look at the definition or interpretation implies that they never intended for every herp-de-derp to go buy a fire-arm if they don't have any idea what the hell they are doing with it, why the fuck do you think there are so many accidental discharges that result in fatalities in the US?
I've even linked to citations of various Articles that further explain the meaning, you're just flat-out ignoring it because you think we want to take all of your guns away. I personally don't, I just want a system that ensures that if you get it legally that you have some kind of proof that you're not some window-licking cuckoo-bird before-hand. If you're going to insist on "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! PERIOD!" then I ask you again, why even have background checks? Just because somebody has a violent history or shows signs of insanity doesn't mean he shouldn't have access to a fire-arm, right? I mean it DOES say "SHALL NOT be infringed".
[I]You[/I] want a "licensing" system that can be abused in the same way as Britain's and an indefinite waiting period on background checks.
You may not be pro confiscation but you're definitely pro elimination.
Maybe if you swear some more like a 10 year old whose parents aren't home I'll be convinced but it's not helping so far.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49244649]Now you're calling me a gun-grabber, because I want a licensing system that ensures that the chuckle-fucks legally buying a gun can be considered competent enough to know what the hell they're doing with their new purchase? You guys have a serious persecution complex, you know that?
I come from a gun family, and while I don't personally care much for fire-arms, the LAST thing I want is mass gun confiscation because I am well-fucking-aware of what could happen as a result.
BUT, if you SERIOUSLY think a viable solution, considering how many dipshits there are in this country that don't appear competent enough to operate a TV remote, much less a gun, is to make guns EVEN EASIER to get for ANYBODY, is absolutely insane. Licensing != "We're coming to take your guns, try and stop me, Shitlord!" (spoiler alert: you can. That's why you have a [B]FUCKING[/B] gun, remember?!)
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
I've already provided links that show what "well-regulated" means in the given context, just because it doesn't fit your view on what you [I]think[/I] "well-regulated" means (in this case it means [highlight]DISCIPLINED[/highlight]. EVEN THE EXAMPLES PROVIDED BY THE OXFORD-FUCKING-DICTIONARY FROM THAT TIME FRAME CONFIRM THIS AS I'VE ALREADY SHOWN, and the Supreme Court even agreed in 2008), either way you look at the definition or interpretation implies that they never intended for every herp-de-derp to go buy a fire-arm if they don't have any idea what the hell they are doing with it, why the fuck do you think there are so many accidental discharges that result in fatalities in the US?
I've even linked to citations of various Articles that further explain the meaning, you're just flat-out ignoring it because you think we want to take all of your guns away. I personally don't, I just want a system that ensures that if you get it legally that you have some kind of proof that you're not some window-licking cuckoo-bird before-hand. If you're going to insist on "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! PERIOD!" then I ask you again, why even have background checks? Just because somebody has a violent history or shows signs of insanity doesn't mean he shouldn't have access to a fire-arm, right? I mean it DOES say "SHALL NOT be infringed".[/QUOTE]
People like you are very specifically why I've try not to argue over the internet anymore. You and the relevant in this thread that has managed to make everything venomous and has eliminated humility. It's no longer a rational discussion that provides a healthy, civil discussion of differences and compromises betwen two different points of view, it's just ego-stroking, aggression, and super lame.
Really though - you in particular need to chill out. Or don't! But just realize you're not making the argument accessible for others - toxicity can be nothing more than alienating.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49242470]Will Constitution.Org suffice?
[url]http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
Literally from the same page you posted, from someone who clearly is in agreement with you:
[quote]In 21st century plain speaking, the 'well-regulated' term circa 1787 when the Constitution was drafted meant, as the case may be, that which is 'adequate,' 'sufficient.' or 'in the proper form' for its intended purpose[/quote]
Just allowing anybody to buy a gun when they have no proper training on its use is hardly "in the proper form" for a militia. So either the founding fathers sucked at articulating their point or you just [I]really[/I] want to believe that they meant that literally anybody should have a gun no matter the reason.
Mind that 'proper training' in 1787 entailed being shown how to put powder, patch and ball in your rifle and being left to your own devices after that. It was on you to practice or not. Wise? Debatable. But that's how it was.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
