iclfan2;1875879 wrote:I don't have one nor see any need for it. Pointing out that it doesn't help that much in this situation as everyone thinks it did.
If you believe that Americans shouldn't have the right to own firearms to protect themselves you are a dumbass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That meme makes no sense to this conversation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

isadore;1875872 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, what pretentious bull.
From the precedent setting 8-0 United States v Miller correctly defined the meaning of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment and it held sway for the next 69 years. The decision read in part.
“The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html
To paraphrase, “There are more things in heaven and earth HitsRus than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
There were other political philosophers and particular occurrences that molded the Founders. Philosophically the writings of a group of early eighteenth centuries English “independent whigs”, including Henry St. John, Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard. Their writing about the threats of oppressive, corrupt monarchial government to the rights the people had a great effect on the Founders. One of the greatest threats came from permanent standing armies. Trenchard’s History of Standing Armies circulated widely in the colonies.
The colonists experience with British military occupation in the period after the French and Indian War reflected the threats Trenchard described. They would lead Madison to push both the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Amendments. Even arch Federalist Alexander Hamilton would write, “I am a mortal enemy of standing armies, particularly in a time of peace.” And supported a federally controlled militia in Federalist 29. Madison made sure the militia under federal control. It was written into Articles I and II of the original Constitution and 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment of the Bill of Rights. As a Congressional leader he helped to pass the Militia Acts of 1792 which spelled out federal control of the militia with requirements on what guns and ammunition the militiamen would have. Jefferson and he as Presidents kept the US Army miniscule, relying on the Militia. It worked to Madison’s detriment in the War of 1812.

You do realize that Trenchard and Gordon (who lived a generation after Locke) were heavily influenced by the writings of Locke, and the others I mentioned? I would suggest that you actually read what they wrote, with regard to self defense and the common people's right to have arms. Try 'Cato's Letters'.
Yes they did have a strong influence on our founders, but don't try to use them to run your progressive gun control narrative...LOL...because you will find it is exactly as I have said.
You are correct about the fear of standing armies, ...that is why it was a necessary evil in order 'to secure the state' ....to allow our newly formed government the ability to have and control the domestic defense. However, that does not mean that the "well regulated militia" is the only ones to have arms...quite the contrary, and that is all over the place in their writings.

iclfan2;1875897 wrote:That meme makes no sense to this conversation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gosh a ruddies lol from the man who sited http://gun-hub.com/index.php/2017/10...-vs-bump-fire/

You're a moron. I don't care if they take away bump stocks other than I don't trust them to stop there. The fact remains in 11 minutes 1,000 rounds is not far fetched for a novice shooter. A trained shooter could have shot 5,000+ rounds in that time. Having bump stocks banned would have changed nothing about this situation. And the 2nd amendment will never be repealed. I'm done arguing with you bc you don't add facts to your argument just dumbass pictures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

iclfan2;1875895 wrote:That's why I used 100 shots per minute not 500. With reloading and practice that isn't far fetched at all. Do you just argue to argue without reading comprehension? And his brother didn't know he had 20 guns so what does he know?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr. Paddock is an evil, vicious reprobate. But he was not stupid and showed the ability for research into weaponry, long range planning in acquisition of weapons and finding a location and event. If he thought he could get the desire effect by reloading, he would have. The bump stock allowed to commit the atrocity.

iclfan2;1875907 wrote:You're a moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gosh a ruddies, wow, I now I have been compared to President Trump. Now that is cruel insult to me.

HitsRus;1875899 wrote:You do realize that Trenchard and Gordon (who lived a generation after Locke) were heavily influenced by the writings of Locke, and the others I mentioned? I would suggest that you actually read what they wrote, with regard to self defense and the common people's right to have arms. Try 'Cato's Letters'.
Yes they did have a strong influence on our founders, but don't try to use them to run your progressive gun control narrative...LOL...because you will find it is exactly as I have said.
You are correct about the fear of standing armies, ...that is why it was a necessary evil in order 'to secure the state' ....to allow our newly formed government the ability to have and control the domestic defense. However, that does not mean that the "well regulated militia" is the only ones to have arms...quite the contrary, and that is all over the place in their writings.

As I wrote, they were political philosophers of the early 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century. And you will understand that when someone read and was “heavily influenced” by another, it does not mean they accept that viewpoint completely. For example Trenchard and Gordon did not endorse Locke’s views on slavery. Or Madison mentored by Jefferson but not accepting all his ideas. Obviously their views on standing armies resonated with American colonists because of their experience with English occupation from 1763-1775. They saw standing armies as a threat and that was the reason for both the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Amendments. You can tell how much it was on their minds by how much the militia appears in the Constitution, much involved with establishing federal control over that armed group. And then with the passage the year after the ratification of the Bill of Rights of the passage of the Militia Acts.
Gosh look at how the Amendment was written. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The First Amendment does not tie freedoms of expression to some goal or institution It does not say Diversity of opinion and the rights of personal belief are necessary for a free state so Congress shall make no law …. And that is true of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just list the rights covered. Obvious the Founders were tying the right to bear arms to the militia, which they had already put under federal control.

isadore;1875893 wrote:so your comparing what the "world's fastest shooter" vs bump stock to what Stephen Pollock, who despite all the guns he purchased was according to his brother with "not an avid gun guy at all," with no special military or other training in speed or accuracy.

Accuracy?

His target was big enough that I don't think that was an issue:

isadore;1875908 wrote:Mr. Paddock is an evil, vicious reprobate. But he was not stupid and showed the ability for research into weaponry, long range planning in acquisition of weapons and finding a location and event. If he thought he could get the desire effect by reloading, he would have. The bump stock allowed to commit the atrocity.

So, let me get this straight ...

He researched his weaponry. He studied the ability to acquire them. He acquired said weaponry. He determined the event location and found himself a spot from which to carry it out.

It would seem you're suggesting that he put a lot of time and planning into this. Would that be correct?

If so, it would seem particularly naive to think that any gun legislation was going to thwart his plan. As such, the bump stock wouldn't have allowed him to commit the atrocity at all. Maybe the plan would have instead involved full-auto weapons, but the plan still would have been carried out.

The idea that a man who plans a mass murder in the detail you've mentioned would be stumped by laws that restrict the purchase of an otherwise commonly available item is silly.

isadore;1875756 wrote:No they are not.

Yes, they are. Citations were provided.

isadore;1875908 wrote: Mr. Paddock is an evil, vicious reprobate. But he was not stupid and showed the ability for research into weaponry, long range planning in acquisition of weapons and finding a location and event. If he thought he could get the desire effect by reloading, he would have. The bump stock allowed to commit the atrocity.

Areyou saying he never reloaded? What do you think a bump stock does?

isadore;1875908 wrote: Mr. Paddock is an evil, vicious reprobate. But he was not stupid and showed the ability for research into weaponry, long range planning in acquisition of weapons and finding a location and event. If he thought he could get the desire effect by reloading, he would have. The bump stock allowed to commit the atrocity.

Areyou saying he never reloaded? What do you think a bump stock does?

gut;1875930 wrote:Yes, they are. Citations were provided.

You are claiming Madison wrote the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights (1776) and Massachusetts' (1780)

superman;1875939 wrote:Areyou saying he never reloaded? What do you think a bump stock does?

he had 12 guns with bump stocks. so not so much

isadore;1875942 wrote:You are claiming Madison wrote the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights (1776) and Massachusetts' (1780)

No, nor did I ever. Reading is not really your thing, is it?

O-Trap;1875926 wrote:Accuracy?

His target was big enough that I don't think that was an issue:





So, let me get this straight ...

He researched his weaponry. He studied the ability to acquire them. He acquired said weaponry. He determined the event location and found himself a spot from which to carry it out.

It would seem you're suggesting that he put a lot of time and planning into this. Would that be correct?

If so, it would seem particularly naive to think that any gun legislation was going to thwart his plan. As such, the bump stock wouldn't have allowed him to commit the atrocity at all. Maybe the plan would have instead involved full-auto weapons, but the plan still would have been carried out.

The idea that a man who plans a mass murder in the detail you've mentioned would be stumped by laws that restrict the purchase of an otherwise commonly available item is silly.

Obviously one piece of legislation limited him, because he would have acquired fully automatic weapons if legal . They would have been superior in operation and accuracy. But that would have led to the possibility of discovery and arrest before he could commit the crime. Bump stocks could be done bought legally without the chance of discovery. And they gave him the volume of fire he wanted.

isadore;1875944 wrote:he had 12 guns with bump stocks. so not so much

Again, what do think a bump stock does?

gut;1875946 wrote:No, nor did I ever. Reading is not really your thing, is it?

obviously you are either visually challenged or a Trump clone. XIII and XVII are from the PA and Mass Bills of Rights

superman;1875950 wrote:Again, what do think a bump stock does?

"This AR-15 rifle is fitted with a "bump stock." The stock uses the recoil of the semi-automatic rifle to let the finger "bump" the trigger, making it different from a fully automatic machine gun. "

isadore;1875952 wrote:obviously you are either visually challenged or a Trump clone. XIII and XVII are from the PA and Mass Bills of Rights

The qoutes had citations. I don't know what ass you are pulling the above from.

#403 on thread you list parts of PA and Mass Bill of Rights

Hamilton gets proved right with every post

HitsRus;1876045 wrote:Hamilton gets proved right with every post

I think ALL our Founding Fathers would be in favor or executing retards like Isadore.

isadore;1875971 wrote:#403 on thread you list parts of PA and Mass Bill of Rights

Once again, you make reading hurt.

You should have a beer with Boatshoes and you can slap each other on the back about how all the words you've read mean something different than what everyone else knows they mean.

HitsRus;1876045 wrote:Hamilton gets proved right with every post

I mean, he's now making irrelevant arguments against things I never said. That's a speical kind of stupid....SPECIAL