benwynn

Purpose of 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Trump admin imprisons American with no due process.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/detention/us-citizen-detained-without-charge-trump-administration-year

America's gun owners respond to tyrannical government by putting non working TV set on fencepost at end of country road and shooting it 

The gun nutters are actually very timid, fearful and meek people (e.g. Tom is a pacifist and would never use his dogballs against invading Nazis).  And it makes sense--- confident, curious, outgoing people don't hide behind guns or post threads worrying about Ebola.   

The gun nutters are "good germans" and can be expected to go along with what the government tells. them.  

It turns out that the 2nd amendment was mostly about white folks arming themselves against the darkies.  And to that extent, it's working.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, the Second was set up by the  Militia Act of 1792. Why guess around about the Second, go read this thing. ESPECIALLY TOM AND JEFFIE. 

You gotta like this author-- since the pro-rights writings will be laid out in every discussion.

Quote

The 1792 NATIONAL MILITIA ACT, the Second Amendment, and Individual Militia Rights:

A Legal and Historical Perspective 70pgs     https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1705564

 

In the PNW, soon after the Militia Act, most American presence was made insignificant by the War of 1812. It was YUGE, Ouch.

Meanwhile, Jefferson had scrounged a Navy and faced off with Libyan pirates in 1803 with it.

Hmmm, Jefferson faced the antics of the British and Napoleon, with a militia which was a flop.

Why the flop? Bueller comments welcome, but it seems that generally, the terms of the  militia (and the supply of weapons) were wildly confused, and inconsistent.

Confusion was caused by mistrust, and by vague and unproven authority. The Second never did work.

 

**********************

I have began to wonder about something. Today,  a formidible de facto militia rests in the National Guard and Reserves. Why is the two-bit insurrection militia the only flavor ever discussed or accepted  on PA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, why did you say "well regulated" means "the government can and should ban all guns" so many times?

Clove, why do you like to assault people who disagree with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Ben, why did you say "well regulated" means "the government can and should ban all guns" so many times?

Clove, why do you like to assault people who disagree with you?

Yer a redneck shithead. You have race-baited me eght of the last nine days. (You took Sunday off.)

It must be a record.

Are those your elk in the OP, shooting stuff as they spite "the government"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Ben, why did you say "well regulated" means "the government can and should ban all guns" so many times?

Clove, why do you like to assault people who disagree with you?

He's using this 'press' as an assault weapon.  It should be banned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Ben, Clove & jocal are "good Jews"  and will meekly get in the cattle car when antifa tells them.

We will do our fighting, and we will do it well. We will choose our own tools, the timing will determine itself.

 

 

We have special elk. This one did  a "good jew" job on Chicago. To him, U.S. gansta violence is just another epidemic.2136456462_CV3-GarySkutkinofCureViolence.thumb.jpg.5190b637494d56da7247e935006ca886.jpg

 

 

God was punishing Europe. To the devout Christian populous in 14th century nothing else made sense. Twelve Genoese ships docked in Messina, Sicily in October 1347. Onboard the vessels’ dying sailors writhed in agony as their bodies became marred with dark, black, swollen patches oozing blood and pus. The victims smelled awful, sweated profusely, expelled dark foul excretions from their bodies. They expired quickly in horrendous pain.

And, then it spread to the rest of Europe.

Black Death’s shadow extended across the continent claiming victims in the most gruesome of ways — subdermal hemorrhages, crippling pneumonia - -launching a desperate search for causes. There was speculation of contaminated air and theories about the configuration of the planets in these centuries before Pasteur and Koch developed the fundamental concepts of microbiology. An estimated quarter of the population — some 25 million people — had perished under the scythe of the Black Death, but God’s wrath seemed the prevailing culprit. Any notion that an invisible microorganism — discovered only centuries later (to be named Yersinia pestis) — was hitching a ride on the back of a rat in the blood-filled belly of a flea would have been a further fetched concept than astrology, demonic possession or wizardry. These were the days before infectious disease or invisible microorganisms were understood.

The desperate solutions created in this enormous scientific blind spot were deplorable in hindsight, although they must have appeared of some value at the time.

Human history is filled with tragic blunders that fail to put their finger on the problem, and actually compose a “solution” that has no value. This is where we are today, relying on prisons as solutions to reducing the epidemics of violence.

(...)At this event, the group discussed brain mechanisms that may be involved in the infectious nature of violence as well as why the CeaseFire method of interrupting conflicts and behavior change have a basis in the new sciences.

MIT’s Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Saxelab, sponsored the event along with The Project on Justice in Times of Transition to advance the emerging, cutting edge scientific field of neuroscience of conflict. Rather than an academic exercise, the event was a conversation between forward-looking experts and practitioners. CeaseFire shared the vision that violence not only behaves as a disease transmitted person to person, but also that it can be prevented and stopped like a disease.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-slutkin/reunderstanding-violence-_1_b_1431360.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, benwynn said:

Trump admin imprisons American with no due process.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/detention/us-citizen-detained-without-charge-trump-administration-year

America's gun owners respond to tyrannical government by putting non working TV set on fencepost at end of country road and shooting it 

Pretty powerful OP, from a  Mr. Hafetz, heh heh. The ACLU does great work, it's quite unique. And the press seems like it's getting sharper in the age of the internet. 

You've got this. The thread title needs an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Ben, why did you say "well regulated" means "the government can and should ban all guns" so many times?

It just sort of just came to me. So many times . What I appreciate is your direct verbatim quote. It shows that at least one person is paying attention. Thank you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Ben, why did you say "well regulated" means "the government can and should ban all guns" so many times?

Clove, why do you like to assault people who disagree with you?

Triggered?  Snowflake Anarchy is down the hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Ben, Clove & jocal are "good Jews"  and will meekly get in the cattle car when antifa tells them.

Well, if I were to become a gun owner again, I could be ready for such an event. Perhaps while it's going on, you, Tom and I could get together and watch football. I'll bring the beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Pretty powerful OP, from a  Mr. Hafetz, heh heh. The ACLU does great work, it's quite unique. And the press seems like it's getting sharper in the age of the internet. 

You've got this. The thread title needs an explanation.

Really? Ok....

Aside from protection against someone who is going to bash your door down and slaughter your family at any given moment, I keep hearing that the main purpose of gun ownership  is to protect the people from a tyrannical government.  One great tyrannical move is indefinate imprisonment without charge. It happened under the Bush Administration in two cases if memory serves, and now under Trump.

In each case, the self appointed guardians of our freedom are doing jack fuck about it. Instead, they sit back while the ACLU (who they don't hold in very high regard) goes to bat for them.

Tom can't even comment on the event, still stinging from the butthurt of me calling out his clumsy explanation that the term "well regulated" means training while not meaning training.

Where are you guys? What does a tyrannical government look like? Do you think they just show up in black vans and herd us up? Do you need it to look like a Tom Clancey novel?  Because it won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benwynn said:

...    ...    ...

Where are you guys? What does a tyrannical government look like? Do you think they just show up in black vans and herd us up? Do you need it to look like a Tom Clancey novel?  Because it won't.

Didn't you get the memo? A "tyrannical gov't" is one where a non-Republican black person or a woman is elected President.

I dunno if having Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker is fully tyrannical, but it's getting close.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Really? Ok....

Aside from protection against someone who is going to bash your door down and slaughter your family at any given moment, I keep hearing that the main purpose of gun ownership  is to protect the people from a tyrannical government.  One great tyrannical move is indefinate imprisonment without charge. It happened under the Bush Administration in two cases if memory serves, and now under Trump.

In each case, the self appointed guardians of our freedom are doing jack fuck about it. Instead, they sit back while the ACLU (who they don't hold in very high regard) goes to bat for them.

Tom can't even comment on the event, still stinging from the butthurt of me calling out his clumsy explanation that the term "well regulated" means training while not meaning training.

Where are you guys? What does a tyrannical government look like? Do you think they just show up in black vans and herd us up? Do you need it to look like a Tom Clancey novel?  Because it won't.

I can get behind the ACLU as a weapon of choice. Easily. And I like their battleground, the courts.

But if they fail we go back to guns again, do we not? Keep going for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of you are misinformed . .  

Since Dubya, the US government has claimed the right to detain any person on the planet (including USAeans), torture them, and do so indefinitely without trial. 

Obama took it a step further, and claimed (and exercised) the right of the US govt. to execute US citizens without trial. 

And what does all this have to do with the Second Amendment?  Very Little. 

Where in hell have y'all been? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Ben, Clove & jocal are "good Jews"  and will meekly get in the cattle car when antifa tells them.

 

I alerted on this post as being over the line of acceptable discourse - even for SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How  big a militia do you need to stop a Abrams tank or cruise missile? The 2A is an anachronism 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

All of you are misinformed . .  

Since Dubya, the US government has claimed the right to detain any person on the planet (including USAeans), torture them, and do so indefinitely without trial. 

Obama took it a step further, and claimed (and exercised) the right of the US govt. to execute US citizens without trial. 

And what does all this have to do with the Second Amendment?  Very Little. 

Where in hell have y'all been? 

It has everything to do with the 2nd amendment according to those who defend gun ownership on the basis of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Ben, Clove & jocal are "good Jews"  and will meekly get in the cattle car when antifa tells them.

It's really sad how ignorant you gun nutters are of the past and how you think this line of reasoning is applicable, much less intelligent. By the time the mass roundups started (almost exactly 80 years ago) it was too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

And what does all this have to do with the Second Amendment?  Very Little. 

I'll give that a shot.

The topic article is from the ACLU, which has recently been acquired by the NRA. They've taken to advocating arming crazy people and arming terrorists and even selling fraudulent insurance, so you know they're NRA shills.

4 hours ago, benwynn said:

It has everything to do with the 2nd amendment according to those who defend gun ownership on the basis of it. 

Except for a few little issues, like:

1. I can't figure out who to start shooting.

2. Even if I could, I have no further plan.

You sound a lot like American foreign policy: there's a problem? DE-REGIME THE FUCK OUT OF THE PLACE!!!

 

 

Ooops. Nation building is going to be needed and we didn't think ahead. Again.

So let's think ahead.

Who should I shoot and what's the plan?

And can you be honest about this one: would something other than my squirrel assault weapon be more appropriate to bring to the fray?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Didn't you get the memo? A "tyrannical gov't" is one where a non-Republican black person or a woman is elected President.

I dunno if having Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker is fully tyrannical, but it's getting close.

-DSK

She’s closer to Tyranasaurusical 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I still dont understand is why 2A prevents things such as national gun licencing and registration.."well regulated" means..well .."regulated" as in "regulations"...not just regulated but WELL regulated.

The fed has the power to over rule the states in constitutional matters does't it?

Maybe someone with less invested opinion could answer this simply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

What I still dont understand is why 2A prevents things such as national gun licencing and registration.."well regulated" means..well .."regulated" as in "regulations"...not just regulated but WELL regulated.

The fed has the power to over rule the states in constitutional matters does't it?

Maybe someone with less invested opinion could answer this simply?

You could look to the people who wrote it and try to figure out what they might have meant by well regulated.

Quote

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Boy, it sure looks like they're talking about training the people, not licensing their gun ownership to the few who show a genuine professional need.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I'll give that a shot.

The topic article is from the ACLU, which has recently been acquired by the NRA. They've taken to advocating arming crazy people and arming terrorists and even selling fraudulent insurance, so you know they're NRA shills.

Except for a few little issues, like:

1. I can't figure out who to start shooting.

2. Even if I could, I have no further plan.

You sound a lot like American foreign policy: there's a problem? DE-REGIME THE FUCK OUT OF THE PLACE!!!

 

 

Ooops. Nation building is going to be needed and we didn't think ahead. Again.

So let's think ahead.

Who should I shoot and what's the plan?

And can you be honest about this one: would something other than my squirrel assault weapon be more appropriate to bring to the fray?

I have absolutely no idea what the plan is. I thought those justifying the  citizenry to own firearms with the need to protect them from a tyrannical government would have a plan. I personally didn't see that as reasonable as it suggests that handguns, rifles, and shotguns would be no match for F16s and F18s.  (F35s? Maybe.)

But you should ask them. I was just wondering where they have been during these glaringly obvious displays of government tyranny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

What I still dont understand is why 2A prevents things such as national gun licencing and registration.

Do you understand that we have a national gun registry with all the legally owned machine guns in civilian hands?

By "civilian hands" I mean, of course, "rich civilian hands" because that registry was closed by Saint Ronald in 1986 so the prices are outta sight.

But the second amendment didn't prevent that registry, nor did it prevent it from being used for the usual gun control purpose of ensuring that only elites are armed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

You could look to the people who wrote it and try to figure out what they might have meant by well regulated.

Boy, it sure looks like they're talking about training the people, not licensing their gun ownership to the few who show a genuine professional need.

 

So why isn't training required? 

Be careful. I may refer to this exchange later. I just can't seem to help myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I have absolutely no idea what the plan is. I thought those justifying the  citizenry to own firearms with the need to protect them from a tyrannical government would have a plan.

They did, and it almost didn't work, which is why they also said this:

Quote

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I'm planning on suffering in Captiva for Thanksgiving with at least a couple of my boats. So the evils of the war on terror, which AJ is right is a Duopoly problem, are indeed bad, but prudence seems to dictate that I continue to suffer until I come up with a better plan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, benwynn said:

So why isn't training required? 

Be careful. I may refer to this exchange later. I just can't seem to help myself. 

Possibly because it

Quote

would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.

If you do refer to it later, please do it the dishonest Tom Ray way, quoting my actual words with a link back to them for context. I know you prefer the TeamD Ranger approach of making something up and putting it in quotation marks, so I've been trying to please you in that regard. Hope you'll do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

You could look to the people who wrote it and try to figure out what they might have meant by well regulated.

Boy, it sure looks like they're talking about training the people, not licensing their gun ownership to the few who show a genuine professional need.

 

It will take me a while to digest the whole thing, seems like Hamilton has a different idea on what he calls a militia though..I will read further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

Possibly because it

If you do refer to it later, please do it the dishonest Tom Ray way, quoting my actual words with a link back to them for context. I know you prefer the TeamD Ranger approach of making something up and putting it in quotation marks, so I've been trying to please you in that regard. Hope you'll do the same.

So when you provide the reasoning that the training would be "a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience...", my characterization of that as "too difficult" or "too hard" is a misquote on par with you stating I interpret it as a complete ban on private ownership of firearms"? 

The words hard and difficult are synonyms for inconvenience.  I didn't just make shit up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, benwynn said:

So when you provide the reasoning that the training would be "a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience...", my characterization of that as "too difficult" or "too hard" is a misquote on par with you stating I interpret it as a complete ban on private ownership of firearms"? 

The words hard and difficult are synonyms for inconvenience.  I didn't just make shit up.

 

Yes, for two reasons:

1. I didn't say those things, Publius did, but you attributed them to me, makng shit up.

2. No one could tell you did it because there was no link back for context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Yes, for two reasons:

1. I didn't say those things, Publius did, but you attributed them to me, makng shit up.

2. No one could tell you did it because there was no link back for context.

So you have no opinion on why the training mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not required? 

I thought we went through this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, benwynn said:

So you have no opinion on why the training mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not required? 

I thought we went through this.

If I have stated an opinion that you want to talk about, quote it with a link and talk about it instead of making shit up.

I sometimes toy with the screen name publius but I'm really not Alexander Hamilton. He said the things that trouble you. Not me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

If I have stated an opinion that you want to talk about, quote it with a link and talk about it instead of making shit up.

I sometimes toy with the screen name publius but I'm really not Alexander Hamilton. He said the things that trouble you. Not me.

 

Why don't you just answer his question and state your opinion so there is no confusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

Why don't you just answer his question and state your opinion so there is no confusion?

I think Publius' suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today:

Quote

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Though I'd think we could just e-verify our required weapons and ammo instead of taking the trouble to assemble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

It will take me a while to digest the whole thing, seems like Hamilton has a different idea on what he calls a militia though..I will read further.

Why bother? The authors of the Federalist papers were a tiny minority of the "Founding Fathers". Others had different views, our gun nuts just like to pick and choose who's views they care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well your "well regulated militia" sounds like a Swiss army style militia was more what they had in mind, not gangs of roving vigilantes or the right to "do as you please" with your arms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Why bother? The authors of the Federalist papers were a tiny minority of the "Founding Fathers". Others had different views, our gun nuts just like to pick and choose who's views they care about.

I like to be fair..so post me an opposing view from one of the other "founding fathers"

if you'd had a few "founding mothers" in the mix 2A would never have survived the first cut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

well your "well regulated militia" sounds like a Swiss army style militia was more what they had in mind, not gangs of roving vigilantes or the right to "do as you please" with your arms

That's true, the second has nothing to do with roving vigilantes and we've never had an unlimited right to do as we please with our arms. There are parts of my property where shooting is illegal. Too close to the road.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

I like to be fair..so post me an opposing view from one of the other "founding fathers"

The other prominent group were unimaginatively named Anti-Federalists and were the small government advocates of the day.

Mismoyled may think they were insignificant but the Federalists won the day and got their new Constitution. He's known to be pretty bad at math when estimating minority political parties, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

The other prominent group were unimaginatively named Anti-Federalists and were the small government advocates of the day.

Mismoyled may think they were insignificant but the Federalists won the day and got their new Constitution. 

the objections of the anti-federalists - like George Mason - produced the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment. It, obviously, cannot be a foundation of our Freedom as it post dated the  adoption of the Constitution. They are amendments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

if you'd had a few "founding mothers" in the mix 2A would never have survived the first cut

We have the future for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

Though I'd think we could just e-verify our required weapons and ammo instead of taking the trouble to assemble.

The armed rabble concept.

 

54 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

SoB you would need to read up on militias such as The Green Mountain Boys. There was conflict prior to  a Declaration  of Independence.  That resistance to the crown, that uprising, the Boston Tea Party and a whole host of spats of armed conflict and mischievousness was at the hands of these sorts of groups.  They morphed or matured in organized militias  upon The United States declaring their independence  as it was that or be crushed. "Either we all hang together or we all shall hang alone!"

This is folklore bullshit stuff, sorry. State militias had fought so well for the British in the French and Indian War that England had nullified our national debt. Our currency became solid gold and silver as a result of those well-organized fighters. When the pooped fighters returned to the Ohio Valley, and couldn't handle a serious native uprising, militias from the south responded during the early 1770's.

 

Though the "well regulated" idea comes from Machiavelli, the term itself was coined for England's 1757 Militia Act. Sketchy militias grew increasingly out of favor.

Quote

The Constitutional Significance of a “Well-Regulated Militia” and England’s 1757 Militia Act  (see pp 15 & 16)

The next great push for militia reform would not take place until 1756 when a growing fear of a French invasion surfaced.  While the king’s ministers sent for German auxiliaries to counter this threat,107 members of Parliament proposed bills to place the militia on a better footing as means to wean reliance on foreign auxiliaries.108

 Similar to the militia reform of 1697, multiple political tracts of the era surfaced discussing the importance of a constitutional “well-regulated militia.”  These tracts not only give insight as to what constituted a “well-regulated militia” in mid-eighteenth century England, but they also had some influence on the militia bill,109 for both the militia tracts and the militia bill centered on establishing a “well regulated and well disciplined militia” as “the only proper military force of a free country.”110

(…) What makes the 1757 Militia Act of constitutional significance is that it strengthened the crown’s prerogative over the militia113—this included Parliament losing some of the concurrent authority that it had adamantly fought so hard to gain since the Restoration.114 

 

What is significant for this discussion is that the 1757 Militia Act was the first substantial step toward integrating the concept of a “well-regulated militia” with the regular forces of the army.115  No longer were pamphleteers and proponents of militia reform advocating for a pure militia system.  Since the Glorious Revolution the argument had been that standing armies, during times of peace, were dangerous to liberty, and that the only true defense of a nation was a “well-regulated militia.”116  By the mid-eighteenth century this changed.  It had become commonly accepted that a militia could not withstand the professional armies of Europe.117  As Horace Walpole wrote, “The difficulties of establishing a militia in an age of customs and manners so different [from those of the seventeenth century] were almost insuperable.”118

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

Though I'd think we could just e-verify our required weapons and ammo instead of taking the trouble to assemble.

The armed rabble concept.

Admittedly, it's not for everyone.

Maybe a compromise is possible in which my elk don't make it a crime to NOT possess a gun and ammo and your elk don't make it a crime to possess guns and ammo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

Admittedly, it's not for everyone.

Maybe a compromise is possible in which my elk don't make it a crime to NOT possess a gun and ammo and your elk don't make it a crime to possess guns and ammo?

Let's discuss history. Let's discuss how we got trashed in the War of 1812.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

SoB you would need to read up on militias such as The Green Mountain Boys. There was conflict prior to  a Declaration  of Independence.  That resistance to the crown, that uprising, the Boston Tea Party and a whole host of spats of armed conflict and mischievousness was at the hands of these sorts of groups.  They morphed or matured in organized militias  upon The United States declaring their independence  as it was that or be crushed. "Either we all hang together or we all shall hang alone!"

Thus our heritage of citizen soldiers. This young nation which had just defeated what could best be described as the superpower of the day had been defeated and the yoke of tyranny cast aside. Never again would Americans be treated as something less than free and to ensure that we were guaranteed the Right to Bear Arms.

Forget what all the spin is about. The Second Amendment is the very foundation of our freedom and that ability to preserve a free state  shall not be infringed. Period, full stop.      

that's all very well and beautifully patriotic but you don't live in the 18th C anymore.

This is a serious question asked in good faith so I'll ask you to answer in such.

Do any of you 2A patriots ever ask yourselves just a tiny bit if your patriotism is being manipulated for less noble purposes?

I ask this not as a troll, but am casting my mind to all the various other conflicts around the world, both current and historical where Good people are duped into staunchly defending something traditional or historical that actually has no substantial benefit to them anymore but certainly does to sometimes covert or overt other interests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

.

Forget what all the spin is about. The Second Amendment is the very foundation of our freedom and that ability to preserve a free state  shall not be infringed. Period, full stop.      

Simple question:  Where is the designated muster site for your militia unit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Maybe a compromise is possible in which my elk don't make it a crime to NOT possess a gun and ammo and your elk don't make it a crime to possess guns and ammo?

 You stream foolish stuff IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clove Hitch said:

Simple question:  Where is the designated muster site for your militia unit?

Over 10 years later, and people still haven't read the Heller opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, benwynn said:

So you have no opinion on why the training mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not required? 

I thought we went through this.

 

3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

If I have stated an opinion that you want to talk about, quote it with a link and talk about it instead of making shit up.

I sometimes toy with the screen name publius but I'm really not Alexander Hamilton. He said the things that trouble you. Not me.

 

 

3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I think Publius' suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today:

Though I'd think we could just e-verify our required weapons and ammo instead of taking the trouble to assemble.

So you agree with Publius' position, and are upset that I presented Publius' position as yours. 

I now understand why you would counter by presenting a position as mine that is not at all close to what a would agree with. A brilliant touché. Well done.

I apologize for suggesting that a position you agree with is your position. A real dick move on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Wrong Missy. "Well Regulated" means well trained.

So why is training not mandated? 

I'll take your opinion, or you can just quote someone else you agree with but don't want to own up to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, benwynn said:

So you agree with Publius' position, and are upset that I presented Publius' position as yours. 

The position with which I expressed agreement was this one:

Quote

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

And that's really nothing like this:

19 hours ago, benwynn said:

me calling out his clumsy explanation that the term "well regulated" means training while not meaning training.

And even if it were, you're once again talking about Publius' explanation of it, not mine, but your post provides no link back for context to allow people to determine that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, benwynn said:

 

 

So you agree with Publius' position, and are upset that I presented Publius' position as yours. 

I now understand why you would counter by presenting a position as mine that is not at all close to what a would agree with. A brilliant touché. Well done.

I apologize for suggesting that a position you agree with is your position. A real dick move on my part.

Tom sidestepped well regulated right here, and so did Heller.  Heller had many pages, but not enough to face well regulated.

Where is the recent discussion which Tom is now dodging?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

And even if it were, you're once again talking about Publius' explanation of it, not mine, but your post provides no link back for context to allow people to determine that fact.

Not about links. Address well regulated.

Why are you giving Jefferson a clown act (of "uncooperatives") for an army? What could go wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Wrong Missy. "Well Regulated" means well trained.

Actually, "well regulated" back in 1789 meant they had regular bowel movements.  The entire point of the prefatory militia clause was to ensure they took regular shit breaks.  Taking a poop regularly is definitely necessary to the security of a Free State.  

The-More-You-Know.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

What I still dont understand is why 2A prevents things such as national gun licencing and registration..

Supreme Court precedent and conveniently ignoring parts of the amendment. 

As you say, well regulated is part of the amendment but, in practice, it has no weight because at one point they decided to ignore that part. Nine & a half times out of ten, when it comes to legal matters, the weight of precedent will overrule a common sense reading of the law. It's why corporations are people, pizza is a vegetable, and well regulated means sweet fuck all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

Supreme Court precedent and conveniently ignoring parts of the amendment. 

As you say, well regulated is part of the amendment but, in practice, it has no weight because at one point they decided to ignore that part. Nine & a half times out of ten, when it comes to legal matters, the weight of precedent will overrule a common sense reading of the law. It's why corporations are people, pizza is a vegetable, and well regulated means sweet fuck all.

No, its because "well regulated" doesn't mean in 2018 what it meant in 1789.  Word meanings change over time.  Read the Federalist papers.  The actual writers of the fucking Amendment were pretty clear what they intended.  And the current usage of "regulation" isn't one of them.  

However, AFAIK - irregardless of the meaning of "well regulated militia", I am not aware of any reason that the 2A prevents gunz from being registered and licensing required.  However, we have chosen NOT to do so - so far anyway - because of the known history of gov't abuses of "registries" and the slippery slope it can lead to with confiscation.  There are ample examples of abuse in this regard.  I have long said I would not be opposed to national registration IF we had some iron clad guarantees and protections that would forestall a move to confiscate.  So far, the gun grabberz have been totally mute on that requirement.  Actually no, that's not quite correct.  Several here, specious ed in particular and I think BL too - have pointedly said that there would be no protections against confiscation.  So one can only conclude that our fears are well founded that registration is merely a camel's nose under the tent to get to confiscation.  So.... thanks but No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, its because "well regulated" doesn't mean in 2018 what it meant in 1789.  Word meanings change over time.  Read the Federalist papers.  The actual writers of the fucking Amendment were pretty clear what they intended. 

Keep repeating the mantras of your religion, it doesn't make them true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Read the Federalist papers.  The actual writers of the fucking Amendment were pretty clear what they intended. 

There are NO references to personal self defense in there. Individual rights light are the only two you refer to.

 

33 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

"well regulated" doesn't mean in 2018 what it meant in 1789.  Word meanings change over time. 

This is key, and had to do with Machiavelli's virtu, directly. Machiavelli preached for some three pages, for a sharp militia as the only way to go.

The society, the frontier culture, would force discipline onto young men in the militia setting, then gauge their character by their...wait for it...co-operation and civic support.

And so we view the difference between Publius and Pooplius, and it's not subtle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, its because "well regulated" doesn't mean in 2018 what it meant in 1789.  Word meanings change over time.  Read the Federalist papers.  The actual writers of the fucking Amendment were pretty clear what they intended.  And the current usage of "regulation" isn't one of them.  

However, AFAIK - irregardless of the meaning of "well regulated militia", I am not aware of any reason that the 2A prevents gunz from being registered and licensing required.  However, we have chosen NOT to do so - so far anyway - because of the known history of gov't abuses of "registries" and the slippery slope it can lead to with confiscation.  There are ample examples of abuse in this regard.  I have long said I would not be opposed to national registration IF we had some iron clad guarantees and protections that would forestall a move to confiscate.  So far, the gun grabberz have been totally mute on that requirement.  Actually no, that's not quite correct.  Several here, specious ed in particular and I think BL too - have pointedly said that there would be no protections against confiscation.  So one can only conclude that our fears are well founded that registration is merely a camel's nose under the tent to get to confiscation.  So.... thanks but No thanks.

I think you'd be silly to believe any "iron clad guarantees" offered on gun registration.

The 2nd Amendment is the shortest and yet somehow not the clearest article in the whole Constitution. IMHO that's because of the preconceived notions people bring to reading it. Almost nobody reads that sentence without trying to insert a lot more.

One meaning of "well regulated" is also well led, well officered. That is why all the original colonies initiated universities, to educate future officers for protection of the state. Of course this conflicts with the idea that a militia is a bunch of rugged individualist he-men crouching in the bushes clinging to their guns. Where they will almost certainly start arguing about the Federalist Papers...................

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The position with which I expressed agreement was this one:

And that's really nothing like this:

And even if it were, you're once again talking about Publius' explanation of it, not mine, but your post provides no link back for context to allow people to determine that fact.

Tom agrees with Publius' explanation that the term "well regulated" in the second amendment means training, but we don't need to do the training because it would be inconvenient. Publius' explanation that is. Not Tom's.

How's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, its because "well regulated" doesn't mean in 2018 what it meant in 1789.  Word meanings change over time.  Read the Federalist papers.  The actual writers of the fucking Amendment were pretty clear what they intended.  And the current usage of "regulation" isn't one of them.  

Right. Now it means training. But being inconvenient we don't need to follow it. 

I now think of it as the "buffet amendment". 

"Well regulated"?... No... No thank you... Oh... But the "Shall not be infringed" looks delicious. I'll take some of that.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, benwynn said:

How's that?

Well, that's the problem with cherry picking, and with settling for just reason.com every morning.

Quote

Regulating the Militia 101

Footnote 17, Charles Militia Act of 1792

  •  An Act for Regulating and Governing the Militia of the State of Vermont, and for Repealing All Laws Heretofore for that Purpose § 36 (Vt. 1793)
    • (“Whereas the good citizens of this State, are often injured by the discharge of single guns . . . noncommissioned officer, or private, shall unnecessarily fire a musket, or single gun, in any public road, or near any house, or near the place of parade...unless embodied under the command of some officers.”);
  •  An Act for Forming and Regulating the Militia Within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and . . . For repealing the Laws heretofore made for that Purpose, at 15 (Mass. 1781)
    • (“That no Soldier...shall unnecessarily discharge his Firelock from and after his appearing . . . on a Training or Muster-Day, without the express Order or License of his Superior Officer.”);
  • An Act for Establishing and Conducting the Military Force of New Jersey § 53 (NJ 1806), reprinted in MILITIA LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND NEW JERSEY (1806)
    •  (“That it shall not be lawful for any...private to come on parade with a loaded or charged musket.”);
  •  A Supplement to the Act Entitled, An Act to Regulate and Discipline the Militia of this State § 30 (Md. 1799)
    •  (“[A]ny private . . . To whom a musket is delivered, shall use the same in hunting, gunning or fowling or shall not keep his arms . . . In neat and clean order...shall [pay a fine].”).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I now think of it as the "buffet amendment". 

"Well regulated"?... No... No thank you... Oh... But the "Shall not be infringed" looks delicious. I'll take some of that.

Well, not entirely. Find hearth and home in this buffet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomorrow, 250,000+ humans with guns of all kinds are going into the woods and fields in Michigan.  How well regulated they are will be told by how much venison gets to their freezers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Where they will almost certainly start arguing about the Federalist Papers...................

It's impressive, isn't it? The gun nuts are always nattering on about the Federalist Papers. It's not the recommendations, conditions and stipulations of the legislatures that ratified the Constitution that led to the production of the Bill of Rights. Despite some of these conditions being more expansive than the current 2nd amendment. It's not the congressional debate over these amendments. It's always the Federalist Papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's impressive, isn't it? The gun nuts are always nattering on about the Federalist Papers. It's not the recommendations, conditions and stipulations of the legislatures that ratified the Constitution that led to the production of the Bill of Rights. Despite some of these conditions being more expansive than the current 2nd amendment. It's not the congressional debate over these amendments. It's always the Federalist Papers.

Only two of them. David Hardy takes credit for their original use...

Quote

Hardy, age 23, 56 pgs OF ARMS AND THE LAW Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, 1974 

and for writing FOPA> http://armsandthelaw.com/gunlaw/FOPA/

and for one other masterpiece

hardy's michael moore book.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Keep repeating the mantras of your religion, it doesn't make them true.

You probably have never even bothered to actually read the Federalist Papers.  You know.... those documents where the FF's actually wrote their thoughts down in an attempt to explain/justify why the Amendments needed to be there.

No of course you haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

Right. Now it means training. But being inconvenient we don't need to follow it. 

I now think of it as the "buffet amendment". 

"Well regulated"?... No... No thank you... Oh... But the "Shall not be infringed" looks delicious. I'll take some of that.

 

Prefatory vs Operative Clause.  One is a desire or a pre-condition, the other is a requirement.  Its really not that hard to understand.  Unless you're deliberately trying not to.  As evadent.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You probably have never even bothered to actually read the Federalist Papers.  You know.... those documents where the FF's actually wrote their thoughts down in an attempt to explain/justify why the Amendments needed to be there.

No of course you haven't.

The Founding Fathers include a few more people - dozens more - than Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay

If you are interested in the justification for why the amendments need to be there - read the accounts of debate: https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html and other information.

Or not. I'm betting not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, benwynn said:

Tom agrees with presented Publius' explanation that the term "well regulated" in the second amendment means training, but we don't need to do the training because it would be inconvenient. Publius' explanation that is. Not Tom's.

How's that?

Close enough that I could fix it with one word. Of course, still no link to the previous occurrence you were talking about, but no matter.

We can at least agree with the NRA's latest affiliate group on the thread topic. What do you think of their positions on other second amendment issues?

16 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The topic article is from the ACLU, which has recently been acquired by the NRA. They've taken to advocating arming crazy people and arming terrorists and even selling fraudulent insurance, so you know they're NRA shills.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Close enough that I could fix it with one word. Of course, still no link to the previous occurrence you were talking about, but no matter.

We can at least agree with the NRA's latest affiliate group on the thread topic. What do you think of their positions on other second amendment issues?

 

I'm sorry. When I read your earlier post saying that you thought Publius' suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today, I misinterpreted as meaning that you thought Publius' suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today.

13 hours ago, benwynn said:

I think Publius' suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today:

Though I'd think we could just e-verify our required weapons and ammo instead of taking the trouble to assemble.

How about this:

Tom presented Publius' explanation that the term "well regulated" in the second amendment means training, but we don't need to do the training because it would be inconvenient, and while Tom thinks the suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today, he neither agrees or disagrees with it.

Please let me know if I made the mistake of implying that you had an opinion.

As far as what I think of the ACLUs position, later I'll try to find a quote of what someone else said and leave it at that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

I'm sorry. When I read your earlier post saying that you thought Publius' suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today, I misinterpreted as meaning that you thought Publius' suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today.

How about this:

Tom presented Publius' explanation that the term "well regulated" in the second amendment means training, but we don't need to do the training because it would be inconvenient, and while Tom thinks the suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today, he neither agrees or disagrees with it.

Please let me know if I made the mistake of implying that you had an opinion.

As far as what I think of the ACLUs position, later I'll try to find a quote of what someone else said and leave it at that.

 

That seems to sum up the argument he agrees with but on the other hand, agrees with.   

He's getting into Dog territory.  Sad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just glad you guys can finally acknowledge that the "clumsy argument" you love to hate isn't something I made up. It's something Alexander Hamilton made up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I'm just glad you guys can finally acknowledge that the "clumsy argument" you love to hate isn't something I made up. It's something Alexander Hamilton made up.

 

Which clumsy argument are you agreeing with but stating that you don't agree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 9:50 AM, benwynn said:

Tom can't even comment on the event, still stinging from the butthurt of me calling out his clumsy explanation that the term "well regulated" means training while not meaning training.

I don't agree with that clumsy argument because it was not my explanation, but Alexander Hamilton's, that ben was referencing without linking.

Had he provided a link so that people could follow it and learn that fact, I may not have commented. But he didn't, so I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Footnote 17, Charles Militia Act of 1792

"Footnote 17" is useless without the paragraph(s) that led up to it, Joe.

But it is amusing that you take basic safety rules for BP firearms and turn it into your "indoor militia" nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Benwynn you messed up by bringing the 2nd amendment into a discussion of our lawless government. 

The former has drowned out the latter. 

But we should note that the US Reich is just fine with torture, detention w/o trial, and execution w/o trial 

As long as they get to keep their guns

Some "rule of law" ya got there !! 

(And I would note that some of this in on Obama - maybe 20% of it) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I don't agree with that clumsy argument because it was not my explanation, but Alexander Hamilton's, that ben was referencing without linking.

Had he provided a link so that people could follow it and learn that fact, I may not have commented. But he didn't, so I did.

Tom's Well Regulated Position v 3.1

Tom presented Publius' explanation that the term "well regulated" in the second amendment means training, but we don't need to do the training because it would be inconvenient, and while Tom thinks the suggestion was pretty good at the time and wouldn't be a bad plan today, he neither agrees or disagrees with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 4:59 PM, benwynn said:

So why isn't training required? 

Be careful. I may refer to this exchange later. I just can't seem to help myself. 

Why is it that when they do, usually as a militia or other group, people freak out?? Anytime a group of gun owners (nutters) get together and do anything it seems to attract all sorts of attention. Do you really wants these groups organizing and training on their own? Do you think the government should organize and conduct these trainings? They seem to struggle with organizing most anything else?

Also, since it is a constitutionally protected right, should the other rights require training? Freedom of the press apparently requires very little. Freedom of speech? seems to incite many instances of hatred and bigotry. Freedom of religion? seems to cause all sorts of harm. Where do you stop and where do you begin?

 

I am now finished with my annual visit to PA. I may or may not return to read some of this thread (mostly not). Back to the real world.

 

WL

 

WL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 6:32 PM, Shortforbob said:

 

The fed has the power to over rule the states in constitutional matters does't it?

 

Only in cases where powers are specifically enumerated.  Which power gives the feds the power to over rule the states in the regulation of the possession guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Only in cases where powers are specifically enumerated.  Which power gives the feds the power to over rule the states in the regulation of the possession guns?

The one Reagan used in '86 ? I dunno..you're the experts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, White Lightnin' said:

Why is it that when they do, usually as a militia or other group, people freak out?? Anytime a group of gun owners (nutters) get together and do anything it seems to attract all sorts of attention. Do you really wants these groups organizing and training on their own? Do you think the government should organize and conduct these trainings? They seem to struggle with organizing most anything else?

Also, since it is a constitutionally protected right, should the other rights require training? Freedom of the press apparently requires very little. Freedom of speech? seems to incite many instances of hatred and bigotry. Freedom of religion? seems to cause all sorts of harm. Where do you stop and where do you begin?

I am now finished with my annual visit to PA. I may or may not return to read some of this thread (mostly not). Back to the real world.

So you run into the room, ask questions, then leave.  Awesome.

For rights that require training:  Where do I stop and where do I begin?

I stop at the ones that don't contain a requirement for training and start with the ones that contain a requirement for training.  I believe there is only one.

Hopefully, you heard me as you ran away down the hallway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 6:32 PM, Shortforbob said:

What I still dont understand is why 2A prevents things such as national gun licencing and registration.."well regulated" means..well .."regulated" as in "regulations"...not just regulated but WELL regulated.

The fed has the power to over rule the states in constitutional matters does't it?

Maybe someone with less invested opinion could answer this simply?

The second amendment is a restriction on a power that was never granted.  To read the amendment to try to create such a power is exactly what Hamilton warned us about.

Don't ask why the Second Amendment prevents national gun licensing and registration, but rather ask what Constitutionally enumerated power allows it.  Which one?

On the other hand, nothing in the Constitution or Second Amendment (or 14th for that matter) prohibits the individual states from regulating guns however they wish.  Unless, of course, the Supreme Court makes up such a restriction, which it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

The one Reagan used in '86 ? I dunno..you're the experts.

 

28 minutes ago, jzk said:

Only in cases where powers are specifically enumerated.  Which power gives the feds the power to over rule the states in the regulation of the possession guns?

????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites