iclfan2;1875512 wrote:Nice copy paste job. Again, please try and repeal it.

all we need is a Supreme Court that understands the real reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Yea, I'm sure you and your dumbass websites know the real reason. Thanks for playing. A government regulated militia defeats the fucking purpose of a militia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

majorspark;1875342 wrote:He was located because the rate of fire caused enough smoke to set the smoke detector in his room off. Which alerts hotel staff.

This, and a hotel security guard was on floor 31 and heard the shots from floor above him. He went and confronted the shooter, got shot through the door.

Con_Alma;1875518 wrote:...so you believe the founders wanted to ensure a militia that could protect themselves/overthrow an oppressing gvt....that would also be regulated/controlled by said government??

gosh a ruddies numb nuts, you must remember the time. The Founders did not fear a militia controlled by the people's representatives but professional army controlled by a tyrant. They were ardent students of ancient Rome where standing armies were used by dictators and later emperors to overthrow the rule of the Senate. And 17th century England where Charles I and James II used armies to resist the rule of Parliament.

iclfan2;1875525 wrote:Yea, I'm sure you and your dumbass websites know the real reason. Thanks for playing. A government regulated militia defeats the fucking purpose of a militia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

a force controlled by the people's elected representatives was the purpose for the 2nd amendment. have someone read the Constitution to you sometime.

HitsRus;1875355 wrote:Between his comments and Hillary's on "silencers", I think it pretty much sinks any argument that things would have been any better if they were elected instead of Trump. Listening to him run the gun control playbook ....NRA...the people want safety...etc. ....but the one that gets to me the most is the continuation of the Obama apology tour "the rest of the world thinks"....

You know what Tim?.... I don't give a F*** what the rest of the world thinks and neither should you. Our ancestors left "the rest of the world" to come here, and the Republic they created has been around 250 years, which is a lot longer than most if not all of the other governments that you admire so much.
We bailed their ass out in two world wars, and we've been guaranteeing their security for 70+ years since.

So when "the rest of the world" wants to question or criticize us about ANYTHING about our government, including guns and the 2ndA..... Just say "That's because we are the USA.....AND YOU'RE NOT!"

No apologies needed.

POST of the Week! Get a beer!

isadore;1875527 wrote:gosh a ruddies numb nuts, you must remember the time. The Founders did not fear a militia controlled by the people's representatives but professional army controlled by a tyrant. They were ardent students of ancient Rome where standing armies were used by dictators and later emperors to overthrow the rule of the Senate. And 17th century England where Charles I and James II used armies to resist the rule of Parliament.

Does that mean, "yes"?

salto;1875359 wrote:Do you really believe the same amount of people would have been killed in those 11 minutes, if he was not using a bump stock?

One could say he may have more control over a weapon if he didn't have a bump stock and there for possibly been more accurate and kill more. Full auto, which is what a bump stock more closely replicates, is not that easy to control. Even semi auto in 10 minutes one could do serious damage and kill that many. I wonder how many were injured from trampling.

I know I shoot much better, much more accurate without the barrel overheating when putting .556 rounds down range when I'm in semi auto vs full.

isadore;1875528 wrote:a force controlled by the people's elected representatives was the purpose for the 2nd amendment. have someone read the Constitution to you sometime.

Oh, FFS.

No.

First, if that were the intended meaning, it would be nonsense, because even then, a militia in any form was not necessary for the security of a free state. An Army was more than sufficient.

A militia was necessary for the security of a state's constituency to remain free, which includes (but isn't limited to) from oppressive government, even if you want to label it "representative."

You're trying to fit the language into your narrative, but it doesn't. Again, if you think the authors were simply wrong in including that amendment, then that's at least intellectually honest. Not this, though. This borders on ludicrous.

thavoice;1875544 wrote:One could say he may have more control over a weapon if he didn't have a bump stock and there for possibly been more accurate and kill more. Full auto, which is what a bump stock more closely replicates, is not that easy to control. Even semi auto in 10 minutes one could do serious damage and kill that many. I wonder how many were injured from trampling.

I know I shoot much better, much more accurate without the barrel overheating when putting .556 rounds down range when I'm in semi auto vs full.

I initially disagreed with you, but this actually makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure it would be accurate with smaller groups, because scattering would be easier, but with such a large group, it really wouldn't take that much to pick off that many in such a large group which would have difficulty dispersing quickly.

Ugh. I feel like I need to shower after even talking about putting myself in his shoes.

O-Trap;1875553 wrote:Oh, FFS.

No.

First, if that were the intended meaning, it would be nonsense, because even then, a militia in any form was not necessary for the security of a free state. An Army was more than sufficient.

A militia was necessary for the security of a state's constituency to remain free, which includes (but isn't limited to) from oppressive government, even if you want to label it "representative."

You're trying to fit the language into your narrative, but it doesn't. Again, if you think the authors were simply wrong in including that amendment, then that's at least intellectually honest. Not this, though. This borders on ludicrous.



I initially disagreed with you, but this actually makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure it would be accurate with smaller groups, because scattering would be easier, but with such a large group, it really wouldn't take that much to pick off that many in such a large group which would have difficulty dispersing quickly.

Ugh. I feel like I need to shower after even talking about putting myself in his shoes.

In some of the video I watched people went to the ground when they heard fire and then ran when he was between magazine or weapons change giving him more time. One can reign down a lot of rounds quickly even in semi auto. I put down likely 4000 to 5000 rounds in the last 7 months and it does not take long whatsoever. Having thousands of targets in a small area would make it very easy pickings.

And in doubt we find out but how many of the injuries were from getting trampled, pushed, fell down or whatever

O-trap wrote: Oh, FFS.

No.

First, if that were the intended meaning, it would be nonsense, because even then, a militia in any form was not necessary for the security of a free state. An Army was more than sufficient.

A militia was necessary for the security of a state's constituency to remain free, which includes (but isn't limited to) from oppressive government, even if you want to label it "representative."

You're trying to fit the language into your narrative, but it doesn't. Again, if you think the authors were simply wrong in including that amendment, then that's at least intellectually honest. Not this, though. This borders on ludicrous.

Gosh a ruddies if you are going to direct profanities toward me. Don’t wimp out with an chickenshit abbreviation.
Sam Cooke might have had people like you in mind when he sang, “don’t know much about history.” The Founders feared standing armies because of their studies of ancient Rome and of 17[SUP]th[/SUP] century England. The Army was to be kept as small as possible and the militia was to be relied on to protect nation. So when the nation faced its first major threat under the Constitutional government the Whiskey Rebellion. It was repressed by Militia. In the Whiskey Rebellion the militia under federal control based on the power given by the Constitution including the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment and the 1792 militia act put down rebels who claimed an oppressive government was illegally taxing them.
Large majority of the troops in the War of 1812 defending us against the English were militia.

Again, if you are giving yourself power to regulate a militia, the second clause about the right to own guns is completely unnecessary. It really should read "the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed, BUT the militia will be regulated for the security of the state".

Not really stronger or clearer language you can use in crafting legislation. Not subject to regulation and not as to be determined by law (both qualifiers which appear in the Bill of Rights) - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. Basically needing constitutional amendment to take away that right.

Time to take a nite-nite, Isa.

I think I might buy a new gun in honor of isadore this weekend.

All of the nonsensical positions over the meaning of the 2nd, when Scalia got it indisputably right, IMO. The words "right of the people" are used in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th. People actually try to argue that these four simple words have different meanings?

justincredible;1875568 wrote:I think I might buy a new gun in honor of isadore this weekend.

I might have to get me one of those "Assault Rifle 15s".

queencitybuckeye;1875570 wrote:I might have to get me one of those "Assault Rifle 15s".

Make sure you get a silencer so no one can hear you shoot it.

gut;1875565 wrote:Again, if you are giving yourself power to regulate a militia, the second clause about the right to own guns is completely unnecessary. It really should read "the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed, BUT the militia will be regulated for the security of the state".

Not really stronger or clearer language you can use in crafting legislation. Not subject to regulation and not as to be determined by law (both qualifiers which appear in the Bill of Rights) - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. Basically needing constitutional amendment to take away that right.

Gosh a ruddies, the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment was part of a process of establishing. The Federal authorities had already given themselves control of the militia in Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, and Article II, Section 2, Clause I. Proposed 1787, Ratified 1789. Second Amendments says as part of the process of establishing a militia people may have guns in their homes. Proposed 1789, ratified 1791. And the final step was the Militia Act of 1792 where they were told what weapon and equipment to have. The 8-0 1939 Miller decision used this view for setting the correct precedent for gun control regulation.

justincredible;1875571 wrote:Make sure you get a silencer so no one can hear you shoot it.

Woulda been better if this shooter used that as he would not been able to get nearly as many shots off

isadore;1875576 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment was part of a process of establishing. The Federal authorities had already given themselves control of the militia in Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, and Article II, Section 2, Clause I. Proposed 1787, Ratified 1789. Second Amendments says as part of the process of establishing a militia people may have guns in their homes. Proposed 1789, ratified 1791. And the final step was the Militia Act of 1792 where they were told what weapon and equipment to have. The 8-0 1939 Miller decision used this view for setting the correct precedent for gun control regulation.

So now you're arguing the 2nd Amendment wasn't necessary at all? Then why specifically say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? Why have the 2nd at all? You regulate the militia, so arming them is not an issue. There is absolutely no need for the phrase, or even the entire Amendment as you point out UNLESS it is specifically to grant the uninfringed right to own firearms. Otherwise, as part of the course of discharging duties to regulate the militia, you would simply codify into law the conditions and terms of gun ownership in the militia. It would hardly be an absolute right needing to be included in the Bill of Rights. No, the reason the Amendment and phrase is included is to SPECIFICALLY prevent the government from restricting or limiting your right to own firearms.

You clowns aren't going to run around as a disorganized militia, but you have the unambiguous and unimpeachable right to own guns. Again, look at this within the entire context of the Bill of Rights, which purpose is to guarantee individual rights and freedoms and LIMIT the power and reach of govt, especially a federal govt. That the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is solely to establish Federal govt control and arming of a militia is entirely inconsistent with the other 9.

Your precious precedent got it wrong, and was correctly overturned. A strict interpretation of the 2nd unambiguously concludes "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". A contextual reading would also conclude the 2nd is preserving the individual right to own and bear arms.

Damn...isaderp getting bent over the arm of the couch ITT.

justincredible;1875571 wrote:Make sure you get a silencer so no one can hear you shoot it.

Some of the things politicians say makes me wonder if they really don't know, or if they intentionally misspeak because it plays to their base. Are they themselves fooled by the "Hollywood effect", or are they merely exploiting that with their base?

gut;1875586 wrote:Some of the things politicians say makes me wonder if they really don't know, or if they intentionally misspeak because it plays to their base. Are they themselves fooled by the "Hollywood effect", or are they merely exploiting that with their base?

They aren't stupid. They are absolutely playing on the ignorance of their base for political gain.

justincredible;1875588 wrote:They aren't stupid. They are absolutely playing on the ignorance of their base for political gain.

Which is easy to do, since so many people only pay attention to news that supports their personal biases. Leftists can say silencers make guns completely silent; Trump can create a world where the only truth is what he says and anything else is fake news and, regardless, morons eat it up without even thinking to question.

I liked the article that showed the grenade launcher accessory. ...
Silencers do muffle it quite a bit but would burn up quickly if used to shoot like this guy did