benwynn

Purpose of 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I love rightwing shitposters and their hypocrisy.

As opposed to leftwing shitposters that you cheer on. Go figure.

Are you willing to suspend the BoR to accomplish your gun free utopia, jiblet? None of the other controllers seem to be willing to take that step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

As opposed to leftwing shitposters that you cheer on. Go figure.

Are you willing to suspend the BoR to accomplish your gun free utopia, jiblet? None of the other controllers seem to be willing to take that step.

who are the "leftwing" shitposters?

Share this post


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

can you blue a gun jeff? do you blue guns? If you don't, fuck off.

Yes, I can and have blued gunz.  I don't see the relevance here.  The only shiny black gun I own is a Ruger Red Label O/U 12 ga skeet gun.  The rest are pretty un-shiny.

Share this post


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

Yes, I can and have blued gunz.  I don't see the relevance here.  The only shiny black gun I own is a Ruger Red Label O/U 12 ga skeet gun.  The rest are pretty un-shiny.

BECAUSE ASSHOLE YOU CHOOSE WHAT TO SEE AS HYPERBOLE AND WHAT TO SEE AS FACT.

Share this post


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

BECAUSE ASSHOLE YOU CHOOSE WHAT TO SEE AS HYPERBOLE AND WHAT TO SEE AS FACT.

Hey jiblets suggest you go to this link:

https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/

Its never too late. With all that anger and rage, something is going pop and you’re likely to hurt someone else or yourself. I would normally joke around that I don’t care if you off yourself as that is your choice. But in your case, it seems so imminent that I would hate myself for not saying something. 

Share this post


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

Hey jiblets suggest you go to this link:

https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/

Its never too late. With all that anger and rage, something is going pop and you’re likely to hurt someone else or yourself. I would normally joke around that I don’t care if you off yourself as that is your choice. But in your case, it seems so imminent that I would hate myself for not saying something. 

this must be the "reasonable" part of your shitposting. I'm sure AGITC approves.

Share this post


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

this must be the "reasonable" part of your shitposting. I'm sure AGITC approves.

Hey, I’m not the one screaming at their computer screen. 

Share this post


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

Hey, I’m not the one screaming at their computer screen. 

Bend over some more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bpm57 said:

" In 2015-2016, the latest year available, "

Think anyone has pointed out to them that they are talking about 2 years, not 1, Joe?

You present bad news. Your keen eye had detected a few whopping  gun homicide increases, 15% each, two years in a row. These follow eight years in which those rates had stabilized. Did a bad situation just get worse?

Share this post


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

You present bad news. Your keen eye had detected a few whopping  gun homicide increases, 15% each, two years in a row. These follow eight years in which those rates had stabilized. Did a bad situation just get worse?

Show us the data for "15% each, two years in a row", Joe. The CDC website I have mentioned before even includes graphing tools, so you can visualize why going back 8 years was chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Look - you don't give a shit how many people die. So stop fucking pretending you care about the numbers. You don't. They are just tools in the war to you, they aren't people. what matters to you and dogballs and Jeffreaux is your little shiny black guns. 

I do care about the windshields, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Show us the data for "15% each, two years in a row", Joe. The CDC website I have mentioned before even includes graphing tools, so you can visualize why going back 8 years was chosen.

You have seen the data, through your filtered DeadEye vision. We watched the flat gun homicide rate together, on Political Anarchy, for years.  Mike the Gun Guy articulated the flat pattern (resting at 11,5000) about three years ago. The debate, of course, was whether the rate would go up or down.

Both sides wanted the rate to go down, but that's not what happened. This is tragic.

The nuances of the the problem indicate this is minority unrest. More "Chicago." For some reason, the problem is manifesting itself, specifically, in troubled urban areas;

cdc 2018.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2018 at 7:25 AM, benwynn said:

One at a time, Tom.  No whack a mole today.

Is my personal position clear to you on assault weapons bans?

Then we can get on to Kasich. 

Looks like @.22 Tom ran out of deflections and decided to just walk away.

I've never had someone someone so adverse to appearing to agree with me.

Share this post


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

Looks like @.22 Tom ran out of deflections and decided to just walk away.

I've never had someone someone so adverse to appearing to agree with me.

You are for us or you are against us. Grey isn't a popular concept around here.

Share this post


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

Looks like @.22 Tom ran out of deflections and decided to just walk away.

I've never had someone someone so adverse to appearing to agree with me.

I just figured I'd show solidarity with your approach of commenting every decade or so by responding in 2028.

But if you're in a hurry,

On 11/29/2018 at 11:09 AM, benwynn said:
On 11/28/2018 at 9:51 PM, dogballs Tom said:

The part about them being unconstitutional or the part about the constitution being optional? I found them clear but conflicting and not all that informative because people can believe scary weapons bans are unconstitutional but still support them. The one doesn't imply the other.

Anyway, how long are you going to keep me in suspense?

Am I going to be told to fuck myself for thinking context, links, and implications contrary to facts matter or not?

...

Given your focus on context, I have used font sizes and bolding in the quotes above, making the context as obvious as possible and the actual point of the discussion as insignificant as I could.  Hopefully, this will dissuade you from insinuating that I am a liar. 

In summary, I have stated that I believe bans on "assault weapons" to be unconstitutional, and that I agree with an organizations opposition to assault weapons bans, albeit an organization that offers gun training limited to only 16 states.

Now, you are expressing that I am leaving you in suspense as to my position.

Your position in that other thread was far from clear because there are plenty of people who find gun bans unconstitutional but still support them. They just think we should amend or find some workaround involving forced training or some such thing.

Your position in this one is more clear and, as I said, I'm delighted to note our agreement.

The subject on which I'm still in suspense is not that one. It's this one:

On 11/25/2018 at 11:53 AM, benwynn said:

“Would you feel as though your Second Amendment rights would be eroded because you couldn’t buy a God-darned AR-15?”  -John Kasich, TeamR, February 2018

Where did you get that quote?

I read it and thought Kasich had reverted to his previous support of "assault" weapon bans. Is that the implication you intended?

If so, did your mysterious source somehow let you know it was a false implication? You know, like this:

On 11/25/2018 at 8:00 PM, dogballs Tom said:

In a major reversal, Kasich suggested he might support a ban on an the sale of AR-15 semiautomatic weapons like the one used in the Florida attack. Kasich said, “If all of a sudden you couldn’t buy an AR-15, what would you lose? Would you feel as though your Second Amendment rights would be eroded because you couldn’t buy a God-darned AR-15?”

“These are the things that have to be looked at and action has to happen,” Kasich said.

In 1994 as a member of Congress, Kasich voted to ban the production and sale of 19 semi-automatic assault weapons.

-John Kasich, TeamR, February 2018

I think your version is deceptive because of the lack of context, lack of link, and false implication. So should I go fuck myself now?

Share this post


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

I just figured I'd show solidarity with your approach of commenting every decade or so by responding in 2028.

I'd take him up on it, ben. Letting this one slip by for a decade of peace from the tosser is well worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 10:38 PM, Steam Flyer said:
On 11/26/2018 at 10:20 PM, dogballs Tom said:

OK, maybe I misread this:

On 11/24/2017 at 11:25 AM, Steam Flyer said:

As a gun-owning Southerner & veteran & capitalist, I'm not welcome in most libby-rull groups.

It was over a year ago. It looks like you said you were a gun owner at that time. Did I misinterpret it?

You misread pretty much everything, Tom.

My misinterpretation still seems to be the only plausible one offered for your statement. Maybe one of the clear thinking readers will inform me of what was really meant?

Share this post


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

My misinterpretation still seems to be the only plausible one offered for your statement. Maybe one of the clear thinking readers will inform me of what was really meant?

 We heard that it was none of your business from one guy. That you should go fuck yourself from another. That you should disappear for a decade from a third. You thrive on such attention, which says a lot.

Tom, tell us someday, how you got kicked out of two private high schools.

Share this post


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

I just figured I'd show solidarity with your approach of commenting every decade or so by responding in 2028.

But if you're in a hurry,

Your position in that other thread was far from clear because there are plenty of people who find gun bans unconstitutional but still support them. They just think we should amend or find some workaround involving forced training or some such thing.

Your position in this one is more clear and, as I said, I'm delighted to note our agreement.

The subject on which I'm still in suspense is not that one. It's this one:

Where did you get that quote?

I read it and thought Kasich had reverted to his previous support of "assault" weapon bans. Is that the implication you intended?

If so, did your mysterious source somehow let you know it was a false implication? You know, like this:

I think your version is deceptive because of the lack of context, lack of link, and false implication. So should I go fuck myself now?

I honestly don't remember where I got the quote. But I do believe it  contained most  of that text above. My intent was to demonstrate that not all of those who support restrictions or bans of so called "assault weapons" are from TeamD. His current quote is relevant to my point. I didn't see Kasich entire history of guns to be relevant in that regard. Given your singular focus on this issue, I am surprised you did not find anything with my quote of Brian Mast. A BB gun incident when he was 12 or something.

If you "thought Kasich had reverted to his previous support of "assault" weapon bans", that is entirely your responsibility. If you were looking for an apology for what you thought, it won't be coming from me.

Share this post


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

I honestly don't remember where I got the quote. But I do believe it  contained most  of that text above. My intent was to demonstrate that not all of those who support restrictions or bans of so called "assault weapons" are from TeamD. His current quote is relevant to my point.

You don't have to "believe." I slipped up (sorry!) and used that awful Tom Ray method of quoting, so what you see are your words, complete with a link back to where you posted them.

You intent ignores verb tenses. Had I not looked a bit further, you would have fooled me into thinking Kasich had returned to his previous support of the bans we oppose.

But I did look further and he has not.

He was once a supporter of scary weapons bans.

He said he might return to supporting scary weapons bans.

But he is not currently a supporter of scary weapons bans.

Your intent is dated. There was a time when I said bad things about Duopoly scary gun bans, because that's what they were. Now they're TeamD scary gun bans, as the sponsor list on any of them shows.

I've updated to the new facts of this issue: it's the most partisan issue of our day.

Share this post


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

You don't have to "believe." I slipped up (sorry!) and used that awful Tom Ray method of quoting, so what you see are your words, complete with a link back to where you posted them.

You intent ignores verb tenses. Had I not looked a bit further, you would have fooled me into thinking Kasich had returned to his previous support of the bans we oppose.

But I did look further and he has not.

He was once a supporter of scary weapons bans.

He said he might return to supporting scary weapons bans.

But he is not currently a supporter of scary weapons bans.

Your intent is dated. There was a time when I said bad things about Duopoly scary gun bans, because that's what they were. Now they're TeamD scary gun bans, as the sponsor list on any of them shows.

I've updated to the new facts of this issue: it's the most partisan issue of our day.

The next time I directly quote someone for you, I will attempt to include their entire life history of views on the subject. Up until now, I did not realize that it is my responsibility when YOU make assumptions and read more into something compared to what I actually posted.

It is quite possible that Kasich had a pet squirrel when he was a child, and we both know the obvious bias that would induce.  Yet if he had, there was no mention at all in my post, leading you to beleive he had not.  I should get right on that as I am curious to know if I was desceptive and dishonest about it.

Share this post


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

Given your singular focus on this issue, I am surprised you did not find anything with my quote of Brian Mast. A BB gun incident when he was 12 or something.

If you "thought Kasich had reverted to his previous support of "assault" weapon bans", that is entirely your responsibility. If you were looking for an apology for what you thought, it won't be coming from me.

Tom created a big non-issue, then he won the discussion on the big non-issue. DEBATE WINNER TOM.

 

3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I've updated to the new facts of this issue: it's the most partisan issue of our day.

The Republicans in this era only show, once again, that they are off the tracks. Out to lunch on this one, you and the R's are on the wrong side of history.

squirrel balls.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but notice the nuances. They set up a system based on voting, not on force by further force and gunplay.

 

The successes of the militia during the Revolution were modest, and there were many militia breakdowns and failures.

Tell us of the successes of this militia AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified in 1794. Within eighteen years, this militia format would miserably fail President Jefferson, in the War of 1812.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the beginning, and it wasn't about personal confrontations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Feel free not to own a gun....

Feel free to stand behind your gun tactics. Show us you own the outcome of your culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

gibberish 

That sums up a lot of your posting history right there.

Share this post


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

The next time I directly quote someone for you, I will attempt to include their entire life history of views on the subject. Up until now, I did not realize that it is my responsibility when YOU make assumptions and read more into something compared to what I actually posted.

It is quite possible that Kasich had a pet squirrel when he was a child, and we both know the obvious bias that would induce.  Yet if he had, there was no mention at all in my post, leading you to beleive he had not.  I should get right on that as I am curious to know if I was desceptive and dishonest about it.

You are now the star of Tom's butthurt files. After discussing his single talking point from one Federalist paper (as led by Tom on a leash), our thread goes where? Not far. To three stupid quibbles.

Tom is leg-humping on benwynn now, at will. In contrast, the OP idea is what is profound. Take us somewhere with your idea. Thanks.

 

 

Share this post


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

The next time I directly quote someone for you, I will attempt to include their entire life history of views on the subject. Up until now, I did not realize that it is my responsibility when YOU make assumptions and read more into something compared to what I actually posted.

Not your responsibility, just your intent, expressed here:

 

On 12/4/2018 at 9:47 AM, benwynn said:

My intent was to demonstrate that not all of those who support restrictions or bans of so called "assault weapons" are from TeamD. His current quote is relevant to my point.

It would have been relevant if he were a supporter, which was the implication you were intending.

The false implication.

That may explain why your argument seems to be drawing jocals.

Share this post


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

Not your responsibility, just your intent, expressed here:

 

It would have been relevant if he were a supporter, which was the implication you were intending.

The false implication.

That may explain why your argument seems to be drawing jocals.

No "arguments" are present. You are jerking off for ben.  This is a distraction now, about a missing link, about your most recent butthurt.  Fascinating stuff.

Share this post


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

You're right. Whilst there is disagreement and discussion, it is not similar to yours. The productive discussions lack the dishonesty and obsession with arguing even when agreement is reached that you add to the conversation. Address those flaws of yours and you'll find people willing to discuss their disagreements (& agreements) with you. 

Maybe you can help me out. Which of these presentations is the more honest?

 

On 12/4/2018 at 3:55 AM, dogballs Tom said:

The subject on which I'm still in suspense is not that one. It's this one:

On 11/25/2018 at 11:53 AM, benwynn said:

“Would you feel as though your Second Amendment rights would be eroded because you couldn’t buy a God-darned AR-15?”  -John Kasich, TeamR, February 2018

Where did you get that quote?

I read it and thought Kasich had reverted to his previous support of "assault" weapon bans. Is that the implication you intended?

If so, did your mysterious source somehow let you know it was a false implication? You know, like this:

On 11/25/2018 at 8:00 PM, dogballs Tom said:

In a major reversal, Kasich suggested he might support a ban on an the sale of AR-15 semiautomatic weapons like the one used in the Florida attack. Kasich said, “If all of a sudden you couldn’t buy an AR-15, what would you lose? Would you feel as though your Second Amendment rights would be eroded because you couldn’t buy a God-darned AR-15?”

“These are the things that have to be looked at and action has to happen,” Kasich said.

In 1994 as a member of Congress, Kasich voted to ban the production and sale of 19 semi-automatic assault weapons.

-John Kasich, TeamR, February 2018

I think your version is deceptive because of the lack of context, lack of link, and false implication.

I may have been going in the wrong direction with the whole links and context and honest implications thing.

Is Ben's approach, with the lack of link, lack of context, and dishonest implication the preferable approach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the readers guage the new benwynn butthurt to the recent d-ranger butthurt. Let's involve Bent Sailor in the personal butthurt. Great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was interesting, when John Kasich said this just after the Parkland shooting:

"If you're a strong Second Amendment person, you need to slow down and take a look at reasonable things that can be done to answer these young people,"

Well... Strike that.  Allow me to rephrase:

John Kasich supports the Second Amendment and has signed multiple bills to protect gun rights. As a pragmatic conservative Governor Kasich also recognizes the need for common-sense solutions to our nation's problems. In recent years, our country has been devastated by a dramatic increase in school shootings and mass killings--many with the use of semi-automatic weapons. Governor Kasich believes that we should not be afraid to learn from these tragedies and take appropriate action.

John Kasich has spoken out on the need for reasonable reforms to prevent future massacres--including the potential of expanding background checks on gun sales and limiting the ability to sell weapons that have often been used in mass killings.

The 2nd Amendment is one of the most divisive issues in our country. Leadership requires the willingness to tackle these issues and to find solutions. Our country and our children deserve that leadership.

Source: 2020 presidential hopefuls: campaign website JohnKasich.com , Sep 18, 2018

 

We need bipartisan gun reform to deal with mass shootings

Kasich's own public stances on guns have varied throughout his political career. Kasich supported the assault weapons ban in the 1990s and earned the ire of the National Rifle Association. As governor years later, he signed legislation supported by gun rights advocates and touted his improved position with the NRA.

Last year, legislation Kasich signed went into effect that expanded where people can carry concealed handguns to include willing colleges and day-care facilities. But last November in an op-ed, Kasich called for a bipartisan approach to implement some kind of gun reform.

This week, he said Congress' history of inaction on the issue and the likelihood it will not address it in the wake of the recent high profile mass shooting was just one sign of broad dysfunction, citing the immigration debate as another example. "Think about how bad it is in Congress," Kasich said. "They can't decide anything. They can't agree to anything down there."

Source: Eli Watkins on CNN on 2020 presidential hopefuls , Feb 18, 2018

 

Background checks and increased attention to mental illness

[In the wake of deadly school shooting this week], Kasich said he thought it was possible to push for some measures at the state and local level, like background checks and increased attention to mental illness, while Washington would not move from the status quo.

"I'm not calling for some outright ban," Kasich said. "I'm talking about small steps that can be taken that can be effective, and the Congress ought to do it. I just don't have any confidence in them. I don't think most Americans do.

Kasich said there were honest disagreements on the issue from people who "feel strongly" and stressed he supports the Second Amendment. Still, he tried to make the case that even ardent supporters of the Second Amendment should be open to some kind of change in policy. "If you're a strong Second Amendment person, you need to slow down and take a look at reasonable things that can be done to answer these young people," Kasich said.

Source: Eli Watkins on CNN on 2020 presidential hopefuls , Feb 18, 2018

 

Supports state reciprocity and concealed carry

Gov. John R. Kasich continues to be a strong supporter of the right to bear arms and, as governor, has signed every pro-2nd amendment bill that has crossed his desk to defend this basic, constitutional right.

  • Kasich is a gun-owner himself, and in his 2014 reelection was endorsed by the NRA for his support of the Second Amendment as an inviolate part of our Constitution.
  • Removing Burdensome Restrictions for Law-Abiding Concealed Carry Licensees: Kasich enacted legislation protecting Ohio's concealed carry laws, including allowing for reciprocity licenses with other states where permit holders can carry their firearms.
  • Opposing Obama's Gun Control Efforts: John Kasich opposes President Obama's gun control executive orders. His efforts to expand the federal government's interference with Americans' Right to Keep and Bear Arms are wrong and the governor opposes them.
Source: 2016 presidential campaign website, JohnKasich.com , Dec 27, 2017

 

Registering mentally ill is first priority in gun control

Q: Bill Bratton, New York City Police Commissioner, says he wants Congress to ban the ability of anybody on a terrorist watch list to buy a firearm, even if they're an American citizen. It's a proposal that's sitting in Congress. The N.R.A.'s not happy with it, where are you on it?

KASICH: I've never heard it until right now. I have a lot of respect for Bill Bratton, but I will also tell you that Americans want to defend themselves. And that what we really need to focus on firearms right now is making sure that states use their databases to upload the people who have mental illnesses. And if we want to examine people who are on terrorist watch lists and not let them buy a gun, it's something that ought to be considered. It's the first I've ever heard of it.

Source: Meet the Press 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 22, 2015

 

 

2nd Amendment advocate: NRA rating changed from "F" to "A"

Q: Let me pick up on another issue that some conservatives have with you. Back in 1994, you voted for the assault weapons ban that Bill Clinton was proposing, which earned you an "F" from NRA. Now, your NRA rating is a straight "A". What would you say to a gun rights advocate who is going to say I'm not sure I like the guy who at one time had an "F" from the NRA?

KASICH: That was an assault weapon ban. I'm a Second Amendment advocate. I don't believe the government should be taking guns from people. I think people have a right to be armed. It's about keeping the Second Amendment and it's allowing legitimate gun owners to be able to do what they want, which is exercise their constitutional right. So people don't need to worry about that.

Q: Do you regret your vote for the assault weapons ban in '94?

KASICH: No, when I look at it now, it was superfluous. We were adding a law that had no impact. And I don't think that's ever smart to do.

Source: Fox News Sunday 2015 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Aug 2, 2015

 

Keep existing restrictions, but tighten up on terrorist guns
  • Kasich indicates support of the following principles concerning gun issues.
  • Maintain all federal registration procedures and restrictions on possessing firearms.
  • Implement tighter restrictions on firearm sales in an effort to hinder terrorist groups from stockpiling weapon arsenals.
Source: Congressional 1996 National Political Awareness Test , Nov 1, 1996

 

Cool off before making new gun laws after Littleton

Although he voted for the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons, Kasich said that lawmakers should have a cooling-off period after high-profile acts of violence before trying to pass new laws. Kasich noted that the two students who killed 13 people and themselves last month in Littleton, Colo., violated 19 existing gun laws. “There were already a bunch of laws,” Kasich said. “The kids didn’t pay attention to the laws. I don’t think new laws will solve all the problems.”

Source: Omaha World-Herald, “Kasich Tours Iowa”, 5/23/99 , May 23, 1999

 

More parenting better than more gun laws

Kasich said that the better response [to the Columbine shootings] may not involve gun control. He said parents could do more to help their children feel safe if they could choose where to send their children to school. He also advocated legislation that would allow businesses to provide more flexible working schedules, a change that he said would give parents more time at home with children. “In most homes, both parents work and nobody has the time to spend with their children anymore,” he said.

Source: Omaha World-Herald, “Kasich Tours Iowa”, 5/23/99 , May 23, 1999

 

Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

Vote to pass a bill requiring anyone who purchases a gun at a gun show to go through an instant background check which must be completed within 24 hours [instead of 72 hours].

Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999

 

Opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Kasich opposes the CC survey question on right to bear arms

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms"

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/John_Kasich_Gun_Control.htm

Share this post


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

Maybe you can help me out. Which of these presentations is the more honest?

No maybe about it. I can help you out. I choose not to because you're a tedious prick who has proven incapable of honest discussion, yet whines constantly about the predictable consequences of acting as you do. 

Should Ben whinge, whine, and complain about me not wanting to engage with him after he's been an asshole - he'd cop the same disrespect you have earnt. He owns his shit, you don't. 

Share this post


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

No maybe about it. I can help you out. I choose not to because you've asked another question to which the answer is obvious.

Yeah, I figured you would not want to score that one.

I'm Tom Ray from Punta Gorda, FL. I posted the more honest account of Mr. Kasich's position above and own it under my own name, something "ben" and "bent" won't do.

Share this post


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

Yeah, I figured you would not want to score that one.

I'm Tom Ray from Punta Gorda, FL. I posted the more honest account of Mr. Kasich's position above and own it under my own name, something "ben" and "bent" won't do.

Maybe you missed it, but Ben replied to you just up there a bit.

Share this post


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

I'm Tom Ray from Punta Gorda, FL. I posted the more honest account of Mr. Kasich's position above and own it under my own name, something "ben" and "bent" won't do...

...because Tom Ray from Punta Gorda, FL is a tedious, dishonest prick who has burnt any conversational bridges he might hope to tempt "bent" into walking across. That is a more honest account of my position than any of the various others you've projected onto my commentary here.

Share this post


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

Maybe you missed it, but Ben replied to you just up there a bit.

Shhh... Tom Ray is indulging in one of his self-pity routines. You're going to ruin it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, benwynn said:
13 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I would now like to call the Texas NRA meeting to order.

What we long feared has come to pass. The heavy hand of unaccountable oppressive federal government and their thugs are coming to take land owned by American citizens. We cannot let this outrage stand! This is exactly why we defend the 2nd Amendment and exactly why we each have 3,712 guns in our houses and 917 more in our cars and 29 more on our persons at all times. This is why we each store 95 tons of ammo in our basements. This is why we have bumpstocks on our bumpstocks.

Let's mount up and get going!

<Everyone looks confused, mutters, mills around, and no one heads out the door>

Member 1: Ain't we supposed ta be shootin Democrats?

Member 2: Iffin we caint do that, ain't we at least shootin liberals?

Member 3: What about them danged Mexicans? Who gets to shoot them?

Ah yes... The need to "defend ourselves from a tyrannical government" comes up again.  This should take focus away from shooting up abandoned kitchen appliances. 

Maybe. No promises.

Oh.. And I do not support bans on assault weapons.  I've got a quota to meet on mentioning my gun views for Tom. 


Thanks, Ben!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 10:38 PM, Steam Flyer said:

You misread pretty much everything, Tom.

I have owned.... and used..... guns in times past.

15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
On 2/14/2019 at 8:21 PM, Contumacious Tom said:
On 11/24/2017 at 11:25 AM, Steam Flyer said:

As a gun-owning Southerner & veteran & capitalist, I'm not welcome in most libby-rull groups.


I misread that before, so you said. What does it mean? Did you own guns at that time? Do you still find libbyrulls don't accept gun ownership?

You didn't misread it at all, you just don't accept it on any terms other than some imaginary way that exists only in your head. Perhaps you should move this quote to one of those threads where you talk to yourself.

-DSK

Make up your mind.

When I took your statement to mean that you own guns, did I misread it or not?

Share this post


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

Is this what all those gun nutz are talking about, we need our gunz to fight down an overthrow of the Constitution?


It's mostly ben who talks that way. He does oppose TeamD "assault" weapon bans, so I guess he's a gun nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 1:08 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Yeah, I figured you would not want to score that one.

I'm Tom Ray from Punta Gorda, FL. I posted the more honest account of Mr. Kasich's position above and own it under my own name, something "ben" and "bent" won't do.

You are not an honest person, Tom. Your overall presentation says a lot about you. Interaction with you becomes futile, or worse.

Your second amendment claims are based on history which you bugger up, without vetted sources, for modern purposes. You are a tool for Larry Pratt and CATO, and an observer of boats, not a vibrant guy learning from experience and conversation.

 

Your posts show that race-baiting has been a acceptable tool for you, sporadically, since 2015. Interesting. But in 2018 and 2019 it has became a regular feature. I'm not sure how this benefits you: maybe you just don't have it in you to do better.

 

Share this post


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

It's not that they don't want anything to do with it.  It's just a part of the 2nd amendment that is not convenient. 

We only need to follow parts of the 2nd that are not difficult.  Think of it as a buffet. 


The first part of the second amendment is the most convenient part when mocking Brady types who think we had indoor militias in revolutionary times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 7:39 PM, jocal505 said:

and an observer of boats,

In your whole litany of Tom's supposed faults... I'm at a loss as to how to take this one.  That's sort of along the lines of something you say to someone when you've run out of things to call them.  Something like..... "oh yeah and you're a poopy face!"

But interestingly, that's one of the things that fascinates me the most about you, Joe.  I find myself just shaking my head at some of the silliness you write.  I seriously want to meet you sometime and buy you a beer.  Partly just to see if your command of the English language is really as poor in person as you write here.  But also just to have a debate/discussion in person about gunz to see if you can hold a coherent thought without stacks of references and cutnpastes to refer to.  I'm betting you couldn't do it.  

Share this post


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

In your whole litany of Tom's supposed faults... I'm at a loss as to how to take this one.

It's one of the few accurate things he has said about me.

I even labelled my boat to reflect it.

SpeckTaterAnnaMariaRamp.jpg

Share this post


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

In your whole litany of Tom's supposed faults... I'm at a loss as to how to take this one.  That's sort of along the lines of something you say to someone when you've run out of things to call them.  Something like..... "oh yeah and you're a poopy face!"

But interestingly, that's one of the things that fascinates me the most about you, Joe.  I find myself just shaking my head at some of the silliness you write.  I seriously want to meet you sometime and buy you a beer.  Partly just to see if your command of the English language is really as poor in person as you write here.  But also just to have a debate/discussion in person about gunz to see if you can hold a coherent thought without stacks of references and cutnpastes to refer to.  I'm betting you couldn't do it.  

Try harder?

When I read Shakespeare or the Psalms, I must try to understand that writing. Same for the writing of Lawrence of Arabia and LeCarre (who load every sentence);' same for the inderstatement of the Mueller report, bubba.

Go back and read my post about Tom, Post 340, which is not in Chinese, and is not "a list of faults.". The observations are keen enough, they will stand the test of time. 

You must be getting in your own way, Jeffie. Carry on with that, it works for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:


The first part of the second amendment is the most convenient part when mocking Brady types who think we had indoor militias in revolutionary times.

Exactly.  That's why I called it a buffet. There has to be something in there for everyone, even if some of those people don't like every item in the selection. 

Share this post


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

In your whole litany of Tom's supposed faults... I'm at a loss as to how to take this one.  That's sort of along the lines of something you say to someone when you've run out of things to call them.  Something like..... "oh yeah and you're a poopy face!"

But interestingly, that's one of the things that fascinates me the most about you, Joe.  I find myself just shaking my head at some of the silliness you write.  I seriously want to meet you sometime and buy you a beer.  Partly just to see if your command of the English language is really as poor in person as you write here.  But also just to have a debate/discussion in person about gunz to see if you can hold a coherent thought without stacks of references and cutnpastes to refer to.  I'm betting you couldn't do it.  

Try harder?

When I read Shakespeare or the Psalms, I must try to understand that writing. Same for the writing of Lawrence of Arabia and LeCarre (who load every sentence);' same for the inderstatement of the Mueller report, bubba.

Go back and read my post about Tom, Post 340, which is not in Chinese, and is not "a list of faults.". The observations are keen enough, they will stand the test of time. 

You must be getting in your own way, Jeffie. Carry on with that, it works for you.

There you go again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 9:30 AM, benwynn said:
On 11/20/2018 at 5:25 AM, dogballs Tom said:

So I am curious as to the non-horseshit explanation of the fact that all the gun ban bills that have a thread on this forum have exclusively TeamD sponsors.

A muddled and simple mind like mine looks at that and sees partisans on a partisan project.

What does a wise person see, Ben?

A wise person sees Democrats who own guns. A wise person does not extrapolate the action and views of some members of a group to all members of the group.

https://theliberalgunclub.com

In advance, you are very welcome. Let me know if I can be of more help. 

Never heard of them before this post.

5 hours ago, benwynn said:
On 7/1/2019 at 4:21 AM, Importunate Tom said:

In case you missed it, some good reading material from your new favorite gun group

Amicus brief of The Liberal Gun Club submitted.
Or maybe they're just spreading hate. Their argument is pretty similar to the NRA's and I approve, so...

My new favorite gun group?  You wanna do your usual schtick and dig through 15 years of trash and quote me on that? 

Looking forward to the nostalgia.


No need to dig. They're so darn influential that the phrase "liberal gun club" has appeared less than a dozen times and many of those references were by me.

The other few were in this thread, by you, plus one from Jeff.

You wanna do your usual schtick and talk about me, or did you actually read what they had to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 12:42 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Never heard of them before this post.


No need to dig. They're so darn influential that the phrase "liberal gun club" has appeared less than a dozen times and many of those references were by me.

The other few were in this thread, by you, plus one from Jeff.

You wanna do your usual schtick and talk about me, or did you actually read what they had to say?

I didn't ask for a quote of me mentioning the group.  I asked for a quote where I claim they are my "new favorite gun group."

Get back to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 3:51 PM, benwynn said:

I didn't ask for a quote of me mentioning the group.  I asked for a quote where I claim they are my "new favorite gun group."

Get back to work.

I figured your previous favorite was the one to which you gave money, the NRA.

You cited the Liberal Gun Club with apparent approval, so I figured they're your new favorite. Correct me if that was wrong, but it did at least have a basis in something you said.

Did you happen to read their brief in the pending Supreme Court case?

They make many of the same points as the NRA made in their brief. So bipartisan consensus that out of control grabbers are dangerous to our rights does exist, at least among a tiny group of liberals who are willing to break the TeamD tribal taboo and say something negative about a gun control policy or group. We don't have any courageous liberals like that on this forum, but there are a small handful out there in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need the bastardized SCOTUS version of the 2nd Amendment because it's good for capitalism.  Just like their brilliant Citizens United decision.  Capitalism is our god.  Capitalism gives us our royals.  We worship it.  Even the poorest SOB can love capitalism and pray to the money god to bring him wealth.

Worried about someone breaking into your house?  No problem.  Capitalism brings you an assault weapon that will shred him to pieces.  Sure, those rounds may also destroy everything else around it but it's so cool watching things being shredded with bullets.  If we could just get Stingers legalized.  Imagine what it could do to that unsuspecting prowler! 

 

Share this post


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

We need the bastardized SCOTUS version of the 2nd Amendment because it's good for capitalism.  Just like their brilliant Citizens United decision.  Capitalism is our god.  Capitalism gives us our royals.  We worship it.  Even the poorest SOB can love capitalism and pray to the money god to bring him wealth.

Worried about someone breaking into your house?  No problem.  Capitalism brings you an assault weapon that will shred him to pieces.  Sure, those rounds may also destroy everything else around it but it's so cool watching things being shredded with bullets.  If we could just get Stingers legalized.  Imagine what it could do to that unsuspecting prowler!

My "assault" weapon fires the same rounds it did when I was a boy and they're really not all that good at shredding stuff compared to some of my non-military guns. We can't say what it fires around here because doing so kind of deflates the myth you have bought into but it's just a friggin twenty two.

The 2nd amendment doesn't seem to be much of an impediment to gun control, which is why this question is currently before SCOTUS:

On 1/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The Cert Petition
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

Not presented to the court, but still worth wondering about: why are hoplophobes so darn fearful that they can't tolerate a licensed, locked, and unloaded gun being carried outside city limits?


What do you find wrong with Citizens United? There's a myth about that one that is almost as silly as the myth that squirrel shooters like my assault weapon destroy everything in sight, so you might want to have a look here before answering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

My "assault" weapon fires the same rounds it did when I was a boy and they're really not all that good at shredding stuff compared to some of my non-military guns. We can't say what it fires around here because doing so kind of deflates the myth I believe you have bought into but it's just a friggin twenty two. (FIFA)

The 2nd amendment doesn't seem to be much of an impediment to gun control, which is why this question is currently before SCOTUS:

What do you find wrong with Citizens United? There's a myth about that one that is almost as silly as the myth that squirrel shooters like my assault weapon destroy everything in sight, so you might want to have a look here before answering.

Are you saying a dogballs is an assault weapon? 

As for Citizens United, I don't need to read the opinions of others.  I read the decision.  That decision made possible SuperPACs, anonymous donors and unlimited campaign donations.  And lo and behold look at how many politicians are jumping through hoops to get at some of that big money, some of it Russian money.  How could the brilliant justices on the Supreme Court ever have known their decision would ever lead to such a thing?  No, you're right.  There's nothing wrong with the Citizens United decision.

Share this post


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

Are you saying a dogballs is an assault weapon? 

I'm not the authority on the subject. Legislators are.

And yes, our FL legislators and a bunch of US Senators are both saying that the squirrel shooters we own are "assault" weapons.

Are you saying they are wrong?
 

Share this post


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

it's easy to see how Ailes could have shaped how conservatives turned themselves into attack dogs.  Bury the idea of compromise.  If the truth doesn't fit your beliefs, make something up.  And when the fact checkers call you out, bury them along with everything else that gets in your way of making America to your liking. 

So you were able to learn something from him, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benwynn said:
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Assuming it’s a well regulated militia, they will have common arms and training. It kinda goes with the “well regulated” part. You’re welcome.

I believe I was schooled that the founding fathers determined early on that this would be too hard. Think of the first part of the second amendment as just a suggestion, and the second part an unquestionable, irrevocable guarantee. 


It was Hamilton whose words you're twisting. But as shown in this thread, a misleading implication with no context and no link is how you roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benwynn said:
7 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Now I'm wondering whether you'd like to see the people called for militia service knowing nothing about the censored caliber revolver or the AR15 in their hands? Which do you think more suitable?

I honestly can't decide which weapon I would prefer in the hands of the completely untrained militia running counter to the literal interpretation second amendment.  I'm kind of partial to the dogballs revolver as I think there might be more chance some may shoot themselves in the foot which would at least "weed out" some of the least knowledgeable. 

You invented the "completely untrained" part.

I continue to think the guns that grabbers talk about banning the most are the last ones that should be banned if they really want to focus on the prefatory clause and ignore the words "the people" in the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

You invented the "completely untrained" part.

I continue to think the guns that grabbers talk about banning the most are the last ones that should be banned if they really want to focus on the prefatory clause and ignore the words "the people" in the second amendment.

So the "gun grabbers" are just not ignoring the correct part.

Thanks for the link and context, by the way.  

13 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:


It was Hamilton whose words you're twisting. But as shown in this thread, a misleading implication with no context and no link is how you roll.

Thanks. At least somebody around here appreciates it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

It was Hamilton whose words you're twisting. But as shown in this thread, a misleading implication with no context and no link is how you roll.

No, it was James Madison who proposed the Second Amendment.

https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/bill-of-rights/images/handout-2.pdf

The Second Amendment was originally the Third Article and only became the Second Amendment after it was ratified by the States. The First Article has never been ratified.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

FWIW, Madison originally version proposed:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Olsonist said:

No, it was James Madison who proposed the Second Amendment.

https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/bill-of-rights/images/handout-2.pdf

The Second Amendment was originally the Third Article and only became the Second Amendment after it was ratified by the States. The First Article has never been ratified.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

FWIW, Madison originally version proposed:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

I knew all that but, as readers of this thread know, I was referencing ben's take on Federalist 29.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 2:54 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

What do you find wrong with Citizens United? There's a myth about that one...squirrel shooters etc.

Wow. Amazing. How I love this place.

Roger Stone, walking.jpg

roger stone with escort.jpg

Share this post


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

I knew all that but, as readers of this thread know, I was referencing ben's take on Federalist 29.

Here is my take on Federalist 29. 

First of all, in my quote below, to avoid any impression that I am being disingenuous, the bolding is mine.  I know these terms are not bolded in the original document. My intention was only to draw attention to them for discussion.  Please let me know if you find this offensive and I will repost removing the bolding. 

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. 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."

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

I used the term "too hard" which you appear to take issue with, but I sincerely apologize if you didn't.  I am going by memory, and god help my sorry ass if I am wrong. 

Synonyms for both "inconvenient" and "hard" include "troublesome":

Link: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hard?s=t

Link: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/inconvenient?s=t

Again, if you took no issue with me using the term "too hard", I am sorry.  To avoid any emotional distress in the future, I will use the term "serious public inconvenience and loss". 

So while "well regulated" is included in the 2nd amendment, meeting that standard would not be hard. Rather, it would be "a serious public inconvenience and loss."  This is apparently a dramatically different distinction. 

Aside from all of this, Federalist 29 specifically states a the alternative in that "it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

To my knowledge, this is not happening.  As the term "regulated is defined as "training" in the historical sense, perhaps "necessary" meant "optional" back then.  What's your take on that?  And, as with our prior discussion on this subject1, I urge you to take great care in not stating an opinion as it would require you to own a position as well as detract from chapping my ass on citations, semantics, and suggesting that you do have an opinion on this. 

Citation and link intentionally omitted to give you something to piss and moan about.

Share this post


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

Here is my take on Federalist 29. 

First of all, in my quote below, to avoid any impression that I am being disingenuous, the bolding is mine.  I know these terms are not bolded in the original document. My intention was only to draw attention to them for discussion.  Please let me know if you find this offensive and I will repost removing the bolding. 

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. 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."

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

I used the term "too hard" which you appear to take issue with, but I sincerely apologize if you didn't.  I am going by memory, and god help my sorry ass if I am wrong. 

Synonyms for both "inconvenient" and "hard" include "troublesome":

Link: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hard?s=t

Link: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/inconvenient?s=t

Again, if you took no issue with me using the term "too hard", I am sorry.  To avoid any emotional distress in the future, I will use the term "serious public inconvenience and loss". 

So while "well regulated" is included in the 2nd amendment, meeting that standard would not be hard. Rather, it would be "a serious public inconvenience and loss."  This is apparently a dramatically different distinction. 

Aside from all of this, Federalist 29 specifically states a the alternative in that "it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

To my knowledge, this is not happening.  As the term "regulated is defined as "training" in the historical sense, perhaps "necessary" meant "optional" back then.  What's your take on that?  And, as with our prior discussion on this subject1, I urge you to take great care in not stating an opinion as it would require you to own a position as well as detract from chapping my ass on citations, semantics, and suggesting that you do have an opinion on this. 

Citation and link intentionally omitted to give you something to piss and moan about.

So who on Supreme Court is agreeable to militia owned motorized artillery, aircraft,  and tactical nukes?  Is it a schism between origionalists and those who believe the constitution a living breathing thing?  It’s hard to believe originalists would go with modern weapons, but what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Amati said:

 It’s hard to believe originalists would go with modern weapons, but what do I know?

Does freedom of speech apply to any methods that did not exist in the 18th century?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Does freedom of speech apply to any methods that did not exist in the 18th century?

 

I believe so.  

But... Are you using this as an argument that any one of us have the right to possess tactical nuclear weapons?

If so, I'm all ears.  Please... Continue... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bpm may have a water balloon, no problem

Share this post


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

bpm may have a water balloon, no problem

One of those could take an eye out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Does freedom of speech apply to any methods that did not exist in the 18th century?

 

Are you an originalist?

Share this post


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

Are you an originalist?

More of an origamiist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Amati said:

It’s hard to believe originalists would go with modern weapons, but what do I know?

Nor would they go with modern printing presses or the internet as a means to disseminate that "press stuff".  

Share this post


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

I believe so.  

But... Are you using this as an argument that any one of us have the right to possess tactical nuclear weapons?

If so, I'm all ears.  Please... Continue... 

Tactical nukes would not be considered being "under arms" or "bearing" arms as is commonly thought of both back then (as described in Fed 29) and today.  Being armed or "being under arms" typically encompasses personal weapons - sidearms and rifles for instance.  An artilleryman with a 105mm Howitzer, an Armor guy with an Abrahms MBT or a fighter pilot with an F-15E would not be described as being "under arms" or armed or "bearing" arms.  

So no.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you finally.  

Share this post


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

Tactical nukes would not be considered being "under arms" or "bearing" arms as is commonly thought of both back then (as described in Fed 29) and today.  Being armed or "being under arms" typically encompasses personal weapons - sidearms and rifles for instance.  An artilleryman with a 105mm Howitzer, an Armor guy with an Abrahms MBT or a fighter pilot with an F-15E would not be described as being "under arms" or armed or "bearing" arms.  

So no.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you finally.  

More specifically, would "bearing arms" as is commonly thought of both back then (as described in Fed 29) be considered single shot pistols and muskets, clear it up for me finally?

If not please provide the exact point of advancement in weaponry where the 2nd no longer applies.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

More specifically, would "bearing arms" as is commonly thought of both back then (as described in Fed 29) be considered single shot pistols and muskets, clear it up for me finally?

If not please provide the exact point of advancement in weaponry where the 2nd no longer applies.

 

Cannons were considered militia armament, as well as privateer brigantines and schooners, small forts- there was a revolutionary militia that brought cannons in to some battle in New England., and there were privateers aplenty.

Jeff is a liberal! :o

Edit- Henry Knox , a bookseller, was the cannon guy-

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

More of an origamiist.

Or a Sophist.

Share this post


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

More specifically, would "bearing arms" as is commonly thought of both back then (as described in Fed 29) be considered single shot pistols and muskets, clear it up for me finally?

If not please provide the exact point of advancement in weaponry where the 2nd no longer applies.

 

Has nothing to do with the "Advancement of weaponry".  It has to do with the type of weapon.  Bearing arms back then was considered to be pistols and muskets - i.e. personal weapons carried by each soldier/milita member (i.e. The People).  Modern rifles and pistols are similarly considered bearing arms and are personal weapons each soldier/militia member (i.e. The People) carries.  

In 1789, Artillery was never considered "arms the militia were expected to muster with" anymore than artillery or nukes today would be.  Cannons were kept in armories just like nukes and Tanks are kept in armories.  It has nothing to do with modern vs original - it has to do with the class of the weapon.  It's not really possible or practical to "Keep and Bear" a B-61.  

If you disagree with that, then please kindly provide me the exact point of advancement of the printing press where the 1st no longer applies.  Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry Knox brought cannons to Dorchester Heights, which commanded the British Position enough that the British withdrew-

Share this post


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

Wow. Amazing. How I love this place.

Me fuckin too.

Share this post


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

More specifically, would "bearing arms" as is commonly thought of both back then (as described in Fed 29) be considered single shot pistols and muskets, clear it up for me finally?

Grabbers did try that argument in the case of Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice, but the Supreme Court unanimously rejected it.

The same people who advanced that argument are really big on "her body, her choice" but only in one context. They would never tolerate the idea that the first amendment applies only to 18th century printing presses. But Gungrabbiness Uber Alles is the TeamD culture, so...

Share this post


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

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."

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

This may be happening in the only place that TeamD argues the second amendment applies: inside homes. How would we know?

I hope that the Supreme Court puts an end to the indoor militia nonsense soon. But not before it elicits some laughter on December 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 70’s were very good to conservative activists who say they are originalists, but really are manipulative extra congressional ‘Living Constitutionalist’ Liberals masquerading as conservatives.  No different than Trump, if you think on it.

Submitted for your amusement....

https://www.thenation.com/article/repeal-second-amendment-gun-control/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes possession of nukes and B-2s are a 2nd amendment right, now if only i could get someone to sell me some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting as  vietman vet , I see so many none vets and draft dodgers want to have guns, 

Trump bone spurs,

Lapenis ( head of the NRA ) got nervous around guns,

Ted Nunetit singer for the NRA , shit pants when he fired  a gun, 

I could on  , but going sailing , 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Tactical nukes would not be considered being "under arms" or "bearing" arms as is commonly thought of

lol more scholarship from the dummy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites