Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Independence Day!
Comments
-
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.
