benwynn

Purpose of 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

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
Guest
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
Guest
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
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

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
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

lol more scholarship from the dummy

Yup- you’d think if a 70’ privateer with canons was considered ok in the revolutionary war, or the War of 1812, just scale her up to modern technology. Jeez, I’m not advocating for strategic nuclear, just tactical.  

A sense of proportion is necessary in these sort of  tête-à-tête!  -_-

 

Share this post


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

Yes, I mentioned that a couple of years ago.

On 12/6/2017 at 6:57 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

President Madison signed Letters of Marque putting privately owned warships into US service.

As for nukes, they seem kind of dangerous and unusual to me. This matters. Grabbers who were trying to deny Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice originally went with two arguments:

1. Stun guns are dangerous and unusual, thus not protected. They abandoned this one before they got to the Supreme Court, probably trying to avoid derisive laughter.

2. Stun guns didn't exist in the 18th century and the Bill of Rights only applies to technology that existed at that time. Because TeamD, they couldn't abandon this one and had to get a unanimous SCOTUS to tell them it's just not how we treat the Bill of Rights.

Share this post


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

Yup- you’d think if a 70’ privateer with canons was considered ok in the revolutionary war, or the War of 1812, just scale her up to modern technology. Jeez, I’m not advocating for strategic nuclear, just tactical.  

A sense of proportion is necessary in these sort of  tête-à-tête!  -_-

 

They are either arms or they aren't, despite Jeff's scholarship on muskets.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

They are either arms or they aren't, despite Jeff's scholarship on muskets.

 

 

How about a device capable of destabilizing a sun, leading to a supernova?

Share this post


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

How about a device capable of destabilizing a sun, leading to a supernova?

Or something that jams GPS signals or military radios.  Any well-regulated militia would absolutely need that kind of shit to prevent overreaching by the government as specifically intended by the framers, right?  How would that argument fare at SCOTUS, I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Or something that jams GPS signals or military radios.  Any well-regulated militia would absolutely need that kind of shit to prevent overreaching by the government as specifically intended by the framers, right?  How would that argument fare at SCOTUS, I wonder?

Sounds like something that would need to be used outdoors to me, contrary to the TeamD narrative that the second amendment really only matters in the home.

We'll see how the "in the home" argument fares December 2nd. I'm still predicting it will be met with laughter.

Share this post


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

Sounds like something that would need to be used outdoors to me, contrary to the TeamD narrative that the second amendment really only matters in the home.

We'll see how the "in the home" argument fares December 2nd. I'm still predicting it will be met with laughter.

dunno what teamD is.  I'm not made of straw

Share this post


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

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.

Do you could put a lid on the "Team D" horseshit for just bit, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

Do you agree with the following condition under which the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?

"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."

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

Edited to add the link. Jesus fuck that was close. Almost got another ass chewin'.

Share this post


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

I believe so.

Oh?

So _some parts of the BoR_ still apply despite the technology not existing in the 18th century, yet _other parts of the BoR_ no longer apply, since the technology did not exist in the 18th century.

Must be something that makes sense to members of the echo chamber. For those of us who live in the rest of the US, we have Caetano v. Mass - you might want to read it, it is only a few pages long.

20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

bpm may have a water balloon, no problem

Aww, nothing to cut n paste, Joe?

Share this post


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

Do you could put a lid on the "Team D" horseshit for just bit, it would be appreciated.

Why would you have a problem with the term? It perfectly describes the party that can be counted on to put forth all sorts of bills to ban everything.

 

Share this post


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

Why would you have a problem with the term? It perfectly describes the party that can be counted on to put forth all sorts of bills to ban everything.

 

lazy and jingoist

poor communicators use nicknames  as shorthand.  

Share this post


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

Why would you have a problem with the term? It perfectly describes the party that can be counted on to put forth all sorts of bills to ban everything.

 

Abortion

Recreational drugs

Flag burning

Gay marriage

Gay Parenthood

The IRS

Bathroom choice.

Filming and photography on the House Floor.

Shall I continue? 

I'm not sure whether you are on TeamR, but you should at the very least check for vacancies on Team Fuckwit.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Like TeamR banning sextoys in Texas? Or all of the Republicans looking to ban the wearing of masks in public? Or the dozens of other things republicans want to ban?

Imagine if the thread title was "Purpose of 2nd Amendment". Imagine if that was the topic being discussed.

What we don't have to imagine is the party affiliation of the author of major firearm bills.

 

21 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

lazy and jingoist

poor communicators use nicknames  as shorthand.  

I can't seem to find any of your messages addressing this topic when the usual suspects refer to anything to the right of the DSA as the "Reich".

Then again, your concern for the geographic location of the author of a post seems to be restricted to those you disagree with - so why should I be surprised?

Share this post


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

I'm not sure whether you are on TeamR, but you should at the very least check for vacancies on Team Fuckwit.

And here I thought the topic was firearms. Silly me, expecting the reading comprehension challenged leftists to actually remember the topic for more then 5 seconds.

 

 

Share this post


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

Why would you have a problem with the term? It perfectly describes the party that can be counted on to put forth all sorts of bills to ban everything.

 

3 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

And here I thought the topic was firearms. Silly me, expecting the reading comprehension challenged leftists to actually remember the topic for more then 5 seconds.

Sorry. When you said "the party that can be counted on to put forth all sorts of bills to ban everything." I thought you had meant "the party that can be counted on to put forth all sorts of bills to ban everything."

My bad 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

And here I thought the topic was firearms.

 

Apparently you have hijacked it.

Share this post


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

 

 

I can't seem to find any of your messages addressing this topic when the usual suspects refer to anything to the right of the DSA as the "Reich".

 

Sorry, you're speaking nonsense again

Share this post


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

So your position is TeamD wants to ban "everything" firearm related?

Did you miss the crowd response when Beto talked about his plan? Did you see any  candidate on that stage suggest it was a bad idea?

Have you read http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/112010/20190812151259076_18-280bsacSenatorSheldonWhitehouse.pdf

Senators openly suggesting that changing the number of justices would be a great idea if the court doesn't rule the way they want.

Bills such as HR4081, providing for a national registry, licensing, prohibits .50 cal and greater, defines pistols such as the Pardini HP as "military style weapons"..

Should I not take (D) presidential candidates & representatives at their word?

 

Share this post


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

Do you could put a lid on the "Team D" horseshit for just bit, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

I'm not supposed to notice that all the arrows slung at me due to my opposition to the gun bans and confiscation programs seem to come from one team?

As I explained above,

On 12/5/2018 at 5:15 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Sorry, you're speaking nonsense again

You forgot to include a link.

To all of your messages about endless "reich" talk being bad, in case you forgot already.

Share this post


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

Do you agree with the following condition under which the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?

"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."

Heck no. The people won't all fit in my house, which is where the second amendment applies. You can't be suggesting that people bear arms outdoors, can you? Only someone completely ignorant of our history would think that militias ventured outdoors.

Share this post


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

I'm not supposed to notice that all the arrows slung at me due to my opposition to the gun bans and confiscation programs seem to come from one team?

You are noticing incorrectly. The people who sling arrows at you come from a broad range of viewpoints. A great many of us disagree strongly with major aspects of the Democratic political party's policy positions.

We are just not on your team. Because your team is dumb.

Share this post


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

I'm not supposed to notice that all the arrows slung at me due to my opposition to the gun bans and confiscation programs seem to come from one team?

You can piss and moan in a Presidential fashion all you want.  I would just prefer you not do it as a substitute for answering my question.

Share this post


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

Heck no. The people won't all fit in my house, which is where the second amendment applies. You can't be suggesting that people bear arms outdoors, can you? Only someone completely ignorant of our history would think that militias ventured outdoors.

Now it's sarcasm as a substitute for an answer.  Is my question really that tough?

Share this post


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

Oh?

So _some parts of the BoR_ still apply despite the technology not existing in the 18th century, yet _other parts of the BoR_ no longer apply, since the technology did not exist in the 18th century.

Must be something that makes sense to members of the echo chamber. For those of us who live in the rest of the US, we have Caetano v. Mass - you might want to read it, it is only a few pages long.

An interesting read and reference Thank you. The interpretation of "bearable" is relevant to the 2nd not applying to nuclear weapons.

By the way, I was a gun owner for many years as well as an NRA member. 

What is odd is that I never had to "assemble once or twice in the course of a year" to remain "well regulated" as a condition to bear arms.

What is your take on that? You can take Tom's position if you prefer, or alternatively: You could answer.

Share this post


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

Now it's sarcasm as a substitute for an answer.  Is my question really that tough?

This from the guy who claims to think a 9 round revolver in the censored caliber is a more appropriate militia weapon than an AR 15?

Were you serious about that one?

Share this post


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

This from the guy who claims to think a 9 round revolver in the censored caliber is a more appropriate militia weapon than an AR 15?

Were you serious about that one?

IBM-Bionic-Body-Armor-Dodges-Bullets-2.j

Share this post


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

This from the guy who claims to think a 9 round revolver in the censored caliber is a more appropriate militia weapon than an AR 15?

Were you serious about that one?

No. No more than you implied agreement with indoor militias. 

No.

That's what answer looks like. 

Come on, Tom....  You can do this. 

Share this post


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

This from the guy who claims to think a 9 round revolver in the censored caliber is a more appropriate militia weapon than an AR 15?

Were you serious about that one?

I"m sure my militia unit must have some guidelines.   But I can't figure out who the C.O. is, how I am contacted by [ somebody ] to get called up, nor where I'm supposed to muster.   

=(

Share this post


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

I"m sure my militia unit must have some guidelines.   But I can't figure out who the C.O. is, how I am contacted by [ somebody ] to get called up, nor where I'm supposed to muster.   

=(

I would think that would have been covered in your required biannual assembly that Tom seems to have issues discussing. 

Then again, he may be busy looking for something I posted a decade or so on the subject.  I don't remember discussing it but always enjoy the suspense of him digging up a gem or two.

Share this post


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

I would think that would have been covered in your required biannual assembly that Tom seems to have issues discussing. 

Then again, he may be busy looking for something I posted a decade or so on the subject.  I don't remember discussing it but always enjoy the suspense of him digging up a gem or two.

Picking out the odd kernel of corn in the turds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benwynn said:
7 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

I"m sure my militia unit must have some guidelines.   But I can't figure out who the C.O. is, how I am contacted by [ somebody ] to get called up, nor where I'm supposed to muster.   

=(

I would think that would have been covered in your required biannual assembly that Tom seems to have issues discussing. 

Wait a minute. Hamilton was a NY big government guy in his day and said "once or twice" and right away you go to "this means twice."

Other people in other states might think checking to see if we are properly armed and equipped could be done once a year, once every two years, once every five years, or even less often, so why go straight to the max and apply it to all states?

But before we get to checking on whether The People have weapons appropriate to militia service, we might need to stop the grabbers who want to target those weapons (and squirrel shooters and plinking pistols) for confiscation.

9 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Did you miss the crowd response when Beto talked about his plan? Did you see any  candidate on that stage suggest it was a bad idea?

I caught it. An uproar of applause and of course no one on stage objected. The only objections to Beto's plan to confiscate useful militia weapons (and squirrel shooters and plinking pistols) have boiled down to "we don't want to reveal our intentions yet."

As readers of gungrabby legislation co-sponsored by Beto know, he does mean our squirrel guns and plinking pistols.

By the way, ben, if you follow that link and then click on the one for the 149 Cosponsors, you'll find his name. I'm not sure why, but saying that he cosponsored a bill and then saying that his name can be found on a list of cosponsors is one of the terrible things I do, so I just wanted to warn you in advance that I might do it.

 

Share this post


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

I'll keep asking.  @benwynn, @MR.CLEAN, @Amati, and the rest of your elk - do you think the 1A protects modern printing presses and other such "Press dissemination" tech such as the internetz?  That's pretty much a simple yes or no question.   

Don't hold your breath. There's been a thread about grabbers taking the idea that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech to SCOTUS since 2016. It's also a "her body, her choice" issue. But no principle is too sacred to sacrifice on the altar of gungrabbiness.

NYC has been trying to avoid taking their indoor militia argument to SCOTUS for a while now, but it will be heard December 2nd. The idea that Paul Revere rode along telling everyone to get inside their homes where they were allowed to have guns would be laughable if we were talking about any other right. But no principle is too sacred to sacrifice on the altar of gungrabbiness.

It costs hundreds of dollars to get permission to exercise your rights in NY and NJ. They'd figure out that this disproportionately affects minorities if we were talking about any other right. But no principle is too sacred to sacrifice on the altar of gungrabbiness.

This won't change as long as grabbing is a marker of tribal identity and the roar of applause for Beto's grabbing plan tells me we're nowhere close.

Share this post


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

I"m sure my militia unit must have some guidelines.   But I can't figure out who the C.O. is, how I am contacted by [ somebody ] to get called up, nor where I'm supposed to muster.   

=(

Perhaps I can help. Hamilton was talking about checking to see if you are properly armed and equipped, as noted above.

So what kind of weapon were you planning on bringing to muster?

Share this post


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

A much harder question for @jocal505 is:  Can the press operate outdoors or are they similarly restricted to indoor reporting of the news only? 

I perceive that you are un-schooled in this matter.

My good man, your belief system is in fact built on a cliché from the eighties. 

Share this post


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

Its absolutely amazing to me how the grabbiness echo chamber here studiously avoids the question about whether they believe any printing press or other "press technology" introduced after 1789 is protected by the 1st.  Its like they all get together and agree "WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION ABOUT PRINTING PRESSES!"

But I'll keep asking.