Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Independence Day!
Comments
-
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech. -
Have you even made an appointment?Sledog said:
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.YellowSnow said:
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.Sledog said:
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
They wouldn't let me make one for you. They said they know your nuts but don't quite meet the criteria as a danger to yourself or others. Yet.HHusky said:
Have you even made an appointment?Sledog said:
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.YellowSnow said:
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.Sledog said:
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
The Puckle Gun was around back then. The founding fathers definitely knew about repeating rifles.GrundleStiltzkin said:
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech. -
Too wordy. D minus.Sledog said:
They wouldn't let me make one for you. They said they know your nuts but don't quite meet the criteria as a danger to yourself or others. Yet.HHusky said:
Have you even made an appointment?Sledog said:
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.YellowSnow said:
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.Sledog said:
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
Yes they did. Other designs as well. People owned there own cannons too.PurpleBaze said:
The Puckle Gun was around back then. The founding fathers definitely knew about repeating rifles.GrundleStiltzkin said:
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech. -
I know words are hard. Sound them out.PurpleBaze said:
The Puckle Gun was around back then. The founding fathers definitely knew about repeating rifles.GrundleStiltzkin said:
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech. -
Sledoog and logic? LOLYellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said: -
I don't think they had any idea what was about the come down the pike in terms of technology. Hell, it was another 45 years until Sam Colt invented the cap and ball revolver.GrundleStiltzkin said:
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech.
Regardless, no rights in the Constitution are absolute be they speech or the ability to own firearms. You can't yell fire in a movie theater or libel someone, and there's a compelling public safety interest for some regulation of firearms. Again, the only gun control that would truly make a difference if a complete and total hand gun ban, which will NEVER happen and is un-constitutional. We're better off looking law enforcement solutions and figuring out the problem of alienated white males who are most of the mass shooters. -
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
The question is what they expressed with their words, i.e., what they meant. It isn’t about what they wanted or didn’t want, though I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have wanted the slaughter that takes place daily in this well armed country.MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
So @GrundleStiltzkin what's a fucking "well regulated militia" anyhow?MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
-
Are you being serious?YellowSnow said:
So @GrundleStiltzkin what's a fucking "well regulated militia" anyhow?MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
What’s rarely discussed by anyone who pretends to want to stop the “slaughter” is the massive gap between white and black homicide rates and the reasons behind that gap. It’s better just to yell about “common sense gun control” rather than address actual problems.HHusky said:
The question is what they expressed with their words, i.e., what they meant. It isn’t about what they wanted or didn’t want, though I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have wanted the slaughter that takes place daily in this well armed country.MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
Ok, I found it...MikeDamone said:
Are you being serious?YellowSnow said:
So @GrundleStiltzkin what's a fucking "well regulated militia" anyhow?MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
TL; DR
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
-
Sledog unknowingly makes an argument for more gun control.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand. -
Seriously though, Damone, DC vs Heller is a long fucking read. I've never read it front to back but will put it one my reading list.MikeDamone said:
Are you being serious?YellowSnow said:
So @GrundleStiltzkin what's a fucking "well regulated militia" anyhow?MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
I’ll pull a Hondo and say that i’m too busy to real it, but well regulated does not mean government regulations. If they simple said regulated, then yes maybe that argument and be made, but “well” regulated has a specific meaning, then and now.YellowSnow said:
Seriously though, Damone, DC vs Heller is a long fucking read. I've never read it front to back but will put it one my reading list.MikeDamone said:
Are you being serious?YellowSnow said:
So @GrundleStiltzkin what's a fucking "well regulated militia" anyhow?MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
Perfect is the perpetual enemy of better in Mike’s world.MikeDamone said:
What’s rarely discussed by anyone who pretends to want to stop the “slaughter” is the massive gap between white and black homicide rates and the reasons behind that gap. It’s better just to yell about “common sense gun control” rather than address actual problems.HHusky said:
The question is what they expressed with their words, i.e., what they meant. It isn’t about what they wanted or didn’t want, though I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have wanted the slaughter that takes place daily in this well armed country.MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
What policy prescription do you have to address it?Sledog said:
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.YellowSnow said:
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.Sledog said:
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
Profound.HHusky said:
The question is what they expressed with their words, i.e., what they meant. It isn’t about what they wanted or didn’t want, though I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have wanted the slaughter that takes place daily in this well armed country.MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
"Shall not be infringed" Pretty specific.HHusky said:
The question is what they expressed with their words, i.e., what they meant. It isn’t about what they wanted or didn’t want, though I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have wanted the slaughter that takes place daily in this well armed country.MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
Check how many were killed by hands and feet. You start the ban.2001400ex said:
Sledog unknowingly makes an argument for more gun control.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand. -
Banning democrats. They're the most common denominator.GreenRiverGatorz said:
What policy prescription do you have to address it?Sledog said:
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.YellowSnow said:
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.Sledog said:
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
-
HHusky said:
Perfect is the perpetual enemy of better in Mike’s world.MikeDamone said:
What’s rarely discussed by anyone who pretends to want to stop the “slaughter” is the massive gap between white and black homicide rates and the reasons behind that gap. It’s better just to yell about “common sense gun control” rather than address actual problems.HHusky said:
The question is what they expressed with their words, i.e., what they meant. It isn’t about what they wanted or didn’t want, though I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have wanted the slaughter that takes place daily in this well armed country.MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
Nah, I’m just interested in taking on the actual problem rather than dancing around it and not actually solving the problem. I get it. You’re more interested in perception and intention then results. That’s fine. Meanwhile black people will continue to die by the thousands every year. But hey, you look good.HHusky said:
Perfect is the perpetual enemy of better in Mike’s world.MikeDamone said:
What’s rarely discussed by anyone who pretends to want to stop the “slaughter” is the massive gap between white and black homicide rates and the reasons behind that gap. It’s better just to yell about “common sense gun control” rather than address actual problems.HHusky said:
The question is what they expressed with their words, i.e., what they meant. It isn’t about what they wanted or didn’t want, though I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have wanted the slaughter that takes place daily in this well armed country.MikeDamone said:
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them. -
I forgot to include that they expected the men of the nation to be able to show up and fight on short notice completely outfitted for battle with arms ammunition and some personal supplies.YellowSnow said:
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
-
Obama made the absolute best case for so called "assault weapons",
-
Lol you missed your comment that after regulations were put in for fully automatic weapons. Only 2 crimes have been committed by them.Sledog said:
Check how many were killed by hands and feet. You start the ban.2001400ex said:
Sledog unknowingly makes an argument for more gun control.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand. -
Since 1934. You dumbshit! People sometimes kill their spouse. No preventing that one.2001400ex said:
Lol you missed your comment that after regulations were put in for fully automatic weapons. Only 2 crimes have been committed by them.Sledog said:
Check how many were killed by hands and feet. You start the ban.2001400ex said:
Sledog unknowingly makes an argument for more gun control.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand. -
Making the point for gun control even better.Sledog said:
Since 1934. You dumbshit! People sometimes kill their spouse. No preventing that one.2001400ex said:
Lol you missed your comment that after regulations were put in for fully automatic weapons. Only 2 crimes have been committed by them.Sledog said:
Check how many were killed by hands and feet. You start the ban.2001400ex said:
Sledog unknowingly makes an argument for more gun control.Sledog said:
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.YellowSnow said:
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.Sledog said:
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
You finally admit that Government regulations work.
