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

If left unspervised, bump stocks kill people.

thavoice;1876062 wrote:If left unspervised, bump stocks kill people.

He seems to be implying something in his previous posts about bump stocks making reloading unnecessary. I'm not sure what the two have to do with each other. I've only been around guns for 41 years though.

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

gut wrote: You should have led, and stopped, with the bolded.

But since you want to quote James Madison:
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/librar..._amendment.htm

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

You lie.
XIII is part of section XIII of PA Bill of Rights (1776)
“XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
XVII is part of section XVII Mass Bill of Rights
“XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.”
And even more dishonestly you cut out the part of the sections that support militias.

thavoice;1876062 wrote:If left unspervised, bump stocks kill people.

and despite your indifference provided the method to kill 58 people and wound 500

gut;1876052 wrote: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.

for you gun nuts the truth about the true the Founders' original intent for the 2nd Amendment is too much to handle. It is for a militia.

isadore;1875947 wrote: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.

SMH

No. That legislation didn't stop him. It made bump stocks more convenient to acquire. It didn't make full-auto firearms impossible to acquire.

With the necessary funds, I could find and purchase full-auto weapons within a couple weeks with relatively low danger of being caught.

Bump stocks are legal, so the acquisition playing field was not level. It favored bump stocks.

Make the acquisition playing field level, and guess which one he goes for.

Don't be dense. Making something illegal doesn't make it inaccessible. Were that the case, so many cities wouldn't have this insane heroin crisis.

isadore;1876090 wrote:for you gun nuts the truth about the true the Founders' original intent for the 2nd Amendment is too much to handle. It is for a militia.

No. Militia was one of the motivations for the amendment, but there is a difference between "because of" and "for." You're mistaking the former for the latter.

O-Trap;1876107 wrote:SMH

No. That legislation didn't stop him. It made bump stocks more convenient to acquire. It didn't make full-auto firearms impossible to acquire.

With the necessary funds, I could find and purchase full-auto weapons within a couple weeks with relatively low danger of being caught.

Bump stocks are legal, so the acquisition playing field was not level. It favored bump stocks.

Make the acquisition playing field level, and guess which one he goes for.

Don't be dense. Making something illegal doesn't make it inaccessible. Were that the case, so many cities wouldn't have this insane heroin crisis.



No. Militia was one of the motivations for the amendment, but there is a difference between "because of" and "for." You're mistaking the former for the latter.

Gosh a ruddies, this may surprise, but most people, even potential mass murderer, do not know all the low life scum you know. They would find it impossible to obtain automatic weapons. America’s mass murderers did not have them at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora or Newtown. So it should be no surprise that Paddock did not have them. And he went with the alternative available to him, the bump stock for his indiscriminate mass murdering.
The reason for the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment was to create a militia to rely on for defense instead of a standing army.

isadore;1876177 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, this may surprise, but most people, even potential mass murderer, do not know all the low life scum you know.

This may offend your sensibilities, but the people able to get you guns aren't low life scum.

They're poor kids who grew up in a crime-riddled neighborhood without a caring home, a good role model, or an instilled value in education.

You calling them "low life scum" is about as despicable as your assumption that they're selling the (illegal) weapons out of greed.

Enjoy your comfy tower as you belittle POC and people who are, and have been surrounded by poverty.

isadore;1876177 wrote:They would find it impossible to obtain automatic weapons.

No. They really wouldn't. Saying they would is akin to saying people don't know where to buy heroin.

isadore;1876177 wrote:America’s mass murderers did not have them at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora or Newtown. So it should be no surprise that Paddock did not have them. And he went with the alternative available to him, the bump stock for his indiscriminate mass murdering.

Ease of accessibility is not equal to categorical access. I assume you know this, as you seem to mostly speak English.

isadore;1876177 wrote:The reason for the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment was to create a militia to rely on for defense instead of a standing army.

First, your assumption of the Second Amendment addressing the army in any way is ex nihilo.

Second, it would be odd for them to create something to prevent a standing army, as they had JUST won a war using both an army AND the militias.

Stop trying to fit the square peg into the round hole. It doesn't fit.

O-Trap;1876191 wrote:
This may offend your sensibilities, but the people able to get you guns aren't low life scum.

They're poor kids who grew up in a crime-riddled neighborhood without a caring home, a good role model, or an instilled value in education.

You calling them "low life scum" is about as despicable as your assumption that they're selling the (illegal) weapons out of greed.

Enjoy your comfy tower as you belittle POC and people who are, and have been surrounded by poverty.


No. They really wouldn't. Saying they would is akin to saying people don't know where to buy heroin.


Ease of accessibility is not equal to categorical access. I assume you know this, as you seem to mostly speak English.


First, your assumption of the Second Amendment addressing the army in any way is ex nihilo.

Second, it would be odd for them to create something to prevent a standing army, as they had JUST won a war using both an army AND the militias.

Stop trying to fit the square peg into the round hole. It doesn't fit.

People who sell illegal weapons cause death. And people like yourself who use and exploit them for your own despicable purposes are worse. The fact that a lowlife like yourself is able to find these illegal weapons does not prove others are able to. The mass murders listed who all had the intention of producing the largest body count available could not. Several of these killers were very intelligent James Holmes had graduated with highest honors with a degree in neuroscience, Paddock, an accountant and multi-millionaire with extensive resources. But none able to obtain automatic weapons.
As can be seen by any unprejudiced person reading the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment. The reason for allowing citizens to bear arms was to have a militia. The militia was to solve the need for a force to protect the nation. The colonist had been oppressed for a dozen years by a standing army, leading to incidents like the Boston Massacre. It was much on their mind when preparing the Bill of Rights. It was the reason for both the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Amendments.

isadore;1876235 wrote:People who sell illegal weapons cause death. And people like yourself who use and exploit them for your own despicable purposes are worse. The fact that a lowlife like yourself is able to find these illegal weapons does not prove others are able to.

This is disgusting and awful, even for you, Isa. Just because you don't like what he's posting and/or his argument against yours doesn't mean that he is a lowlife. Also, insinuating that he uses and exploits illegal weapons is asinine, even with your tendencies.

CenterBHSFan;1876252 wrote:This is disgusting and awful, even for you, Isa. Just because you don't like what he's posting and/or his argument against yours doesn't mean that he is a lowlife. Also, insinuating that he uses and exploits illegal weapons is asinine, even with your tendencies.

DrugsHookersGuns.com - do people still not know about that site?

If you stop responding to him maybe he'll go away.

gut;1876254 wrote:DrugsHookersGuns.com - do people still not know about that site?

Dude, be cool. It's a secret.

CenterBHSFan;1876252 wrote:This is disgusting and awful, even for you, Isa. Just because you don't like what he's posting and/or his argument against yours doesn't mean that he is a lowlife. Also, insinuating that he uses and exploits illegal weapons is asinine, even with your tendencies.

obviously you don't have a value system. I find it rreprehensible to brag about being able to obtain illegal weapons and how easily he can get heroin.

isadore;1876266 wrote:obviously you don't have a value system. I find it rreprehensible to brag about being able to obtain illegal weapons.

I find it reprehensible for someone to say that someone stating a simple fact is "bragging" in order for them to stand on their fake, self-made soapbox to feign moral superiority where none exists.

Perhaps, instead of doing that, you should actually make real arguments based on what others are actually saying instead of re-writing their opinions to fit your point. Unless you want to be another QQuaker, which seems to be the only level at which you can discuss stuff.

Heretic;1876270 wrote:I find it reprehensible for someone to say that someone stating a simple fact is "bragging" in order for them to stand on their fake, self-made soapbox to feign moral superiority where none exists.

Perhaps, instead of doing that, you should actually make real arguments based on what others are actually saying instead of re-writing their opinions to fit your point. Unless you want to be another QQuaker, which seems to be the only level at which you can discuss stuff.

Thank you for your input, you

isadore;1876273 wrote:Thank you for your input, you

If you're trying to fire back at me with that weak shit, you might want to try harder, as that didn't come remotely close to getting under my skin or making me think anything other than how badly you suck at debating, arguing and insulting.

Heretic;1876282 wrote:If you're trying to fire back at me with that weak shit, you might want to try harder, as that didn't come remotely close to getting under my skin or making me think anything other than how badly you suck at debating, arguing and insulting.

LOL, gosh a ruddies, I was not being insulting, merely descriptive. I hope you are having a nice day.

isadore;1876235 wrote:People who sell illegal weapons cause death.

People who sell cocaine cause death to the same degree.

They're also usually poor and trying to make ends meet the only way they've ever been told they can.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but your assumption of who they are, why they do it, and what their overall moral character is as a result is some of the most overt white privilege I've seen on here.

isadore;1876235 wrote:And people like yourself who use and exploit them for your own despicable purposes are worse.

I never said I've used them. I've never used them. I just know who they are. They're real people doing something unethical, because they believe the alternative to be life-long poverty.

isadore;1876235 wrote:The fact that a lowlife like yourself is able to find these illegal weapons does not prove others are able to.

It is. I never went looking for them and still found them. It involved zero effort or intent.

isadore;1876235 wrote:The mass murders listed who all had the intention of producing the largest body count available could not. Several of these killers were very intelligent James Holmes had graduated with highest honors with a degree in neuroscience, Paddock, an accountant and multi-millionaire with extensive resources. But none able to obtain automatic weapons.

You're still conflating "did not" with "could not" to suit your narrative, but it's a square peg for a round hole. Convenience often trumps potential. For them, good enough was sufficient.

isadore;1876235 wrote:As can be seen by any unprejudiced person reading the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment. The reason for allowing citizens to bear arms was to have a militia. The militia was to solve the need for a force to protect the nation. The colonist had been oppressed for a dozen years by a standing army, leading to incidents like the Boston Massacre. It was much on their mind when preparing the Bill of Rights. It was the reason for both the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Amendments.

The colonists had been oppressed by a FOREIGN standing army. That might be an inconvenient detail, but it's pertinent.

Moreover, as I already stated (and you apparently didn't read), an army had already been formed. As in, it was already present. It seems awfully strange that they would create an army if the goal was to avoid an army.

No, an unprejudiced person would understand "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" as a prepositional statement. That is, if they are trying to read it as a sentence that makes grammatical sense.

isadore;1876266 wrote:obviously you don't have a value system. I find it rreprehensible to brag about being able to obtain illegal weapons and how easily he can get heroin.

Nobody bragged. I stated a fact. You didn't like that fact and spun it to include a will. Neither his rebuke of your logical inconsistency nor my statement of a fact that one can easily find illegal property, including but not limited to firearms, is a matter of moral character or will. Your attempt to make it one is, at best, a lapse in reasoning and, at worse, a disingenuous attempt to devolve the conversation into an emotional shit show.

I have no problem discussing the merits of any policy on guns with a person who is willing and able to have such a discussion dispassionately and with the use of reason. Thus far, you've shown yourself to be either unwilling or unable.

isadore;1876285 wrote:LOL, gosh a ruddies, I was not being insulting, merely descriptive. I hope you are having a nice day.

Most insults are descriptive. This is a non sequitur whereby you deny the truth of one word by using another words which can (and in this case does) overlap.

O-Trap;1876289 wrote:

People who sell cocaine cause death to the same degree.

They're also usually poor and trying to make ends meet the only way they've ever been told they can.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but your assumption of who they are, why they do it, and what their overall moral character is as a result is some of the most overt white privilege I've seen on here.



I never said I've used them. I've never used them. I just know who they are. They're real people doing something unethical, because they believe the alternative to be life-long poverty.



It is. I never went looking for them and still found them. It involved zero effort or intent.



You're still conflating "did not" with "could not" to suit your narrative, but it's a square peg for a round hole. Convenience often trumps potential. For them, good enough was sufficient.



The colonists had been oppressed by a FOREIGN standing army. That might be an inconvenient detail, but it's pertinent.

Moreover, as I already stated (and you apparently didn't read), an army had already been formed. As in, it was already present. It seems awfully strange that they would create an army if the goal was to avoid an army.

No, an unprejudiced person would understand "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" as a prepositional statement. That is, if they are trying to read it as a sentence that makes grammatical sense.



Nobody bragged. I stated a fact. You didn't like that fact and spun it to include a will. Neither his rebuke of your logical inconsistency nor my statement of a fact that one can easily find illegal property, including but not limited to firearms, is a matter of moral character or will. Your attempt to make it one is, at best, a lapse in reasoning and, at worse, a disingenuous attempt to devolve the conversation into an emotional shit show.

I have no problem discussing the merits of any policy on guns with a person who is willing and able to have such a discussion dispassionately and with the use of reason. Thus far, you've shown yourself to be either unwilling or unable.

You actually bragged about how simple it would be for you to buy illegal weapon.
Are you a racist? It is a sad joke you tried to accuse me of white privilege. You not I labeled the sellers of illegal guns as black. I never called or implied they were black. I just said you and the sellers were scum. And guess who the majority of them are. The kind of people you associate with.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings “Weapons arrestees are predominantly male, age 18 or over, and white.” https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf
Gosh not even mass murders hang around with the same scum you do. Because consistently they have been unable to acquire automatic weapons. Many of these murders wanted the biggest body count possible. Some like Paddock had extensive resources. But they were unable to acquire the rapid fire guns.
Gosh a ruddies, in 1763 when the occupation began, the colonists considered themselves English and the English army, theirs. It was only in 1776 most began to think of the English as foreigners.
With independence the goal was to rely on militia. The regular army was kept miniscule, kept mainly in the west to fight Indians. When there was a major direct threat militia was used. It was used in 1794 to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.
The fact that the right to bear arms is based on having a militia can be seen in the sentence structure of the amendment. In the rest of the bill of rights, the civil liberties were just listed. But in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment the right to bear arms is tied to a militia to protect a free state.

O-Trap;1876290 wrote:Most insults are descriptive. This is a non sequitur whereby you deny the truth of one word by using another words which can (and in this case does) overlap.

gosh a ruddies, it comes down to purpose. An insult is meant to demean, a description to portray who actually is. I was being descriptive. Hope you had a nice day and did not buy any illegal firearms.

isadore;1876317 wrote:You actually bragged about how simple it would be for you to buy illegal weapon.

Stating how easy it is does absolutely zero to demonstrate that it's a matter of pride. As such, no. You have no grounds for calling it bragging. I stated a fact. A fact that exists independently of me. Inasmuch as this is true, it is necessarily not bragging.

isadore;1876317 wrote:Are you a racist? It is a sad joke you tried to accuse me of white privilege. You not I labeled the sellers of illegal guns as black. I never called or implied they were black. I just said you and the sellers were scum. And guess who the majority of them are. The kind of people you associate with.

You dismissed anyone who might sell guns as a lowlife, which dismisses why they might be doing so out-of-hand, and since systemic racism does put POC at a disadvantage in this regard at a disproportionate level, it doesn't matter that you didn't assume they were black. Your dismissal of anyone who finds themselves in circumstances that make them think they have to do it dismisses the disadvantages that go along with that systemic racism AND ignore the resulting choice.

Once again, I've never, ever bought from people selling illicit products. Also, I never said I associate with them (but you needed some conclusion to jump to). I merely said I knew who they were. That is true. I do know who they are.

isadore;1876317 wrote:Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings “Weapons arrestees are predominantly male, age 18 or over, and white.” https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf
Gosh not even mass murders hang around with the same scum you do. Because consistently they have been unable to acquire automatic weapons. Many of these murders wanted the biggest body count possible. Some like Paddock had extensive resources. But they were unable to acquire the rapid fire guns.
Gosh a ruddies, in 1763 when the occupation began, the colonists considered themselves English and the English army, theirs. It was only in 1776 most began to think of the English as foreigners.
With independence the goal was to rely on militia. The regular army was kept miniscule, kept mainly in the west to fight Indians. When there was a major direct threat militia was used. It was used in 1794 to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.
The fact that the right to bear arms is based on having a militia can be seen in the sentence structure of the amendment. In the rest of the bill of rights, the civil liberties were just listed. But in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment the right to bear arms is tied to a militia to protect a free state.

The Colonists had their own army in 1775. As in, not the English army. So, they formed an army prior to viewing themselves as distinct from the English, and then they kept it after that change. They used it to fight the English, even.

But you're suggesting that AFTER creating an army that was distinct from the English and using it to fight against the English, their intention was to disband the army in favor of militia ... something they never actually tried to do?

Surely you jest.

The army was indeed small, because they didn't extort the general public to pay for it with a variety of taxes, opting instead to fund government with tariffs. Even still, the army led the militia in all major conflicts. To try to make that out to be the result of some fear of an "occupying" military is ridiculous. Moreover, it would make the Constitution redundant, as it already addresses military access to private property in the VERY NEXT AMENDMENT.

If the point was to avoid an official army, then they did a whole bunch of other stuff that makes no sense whatsoever. If, however, the point was to allow private citizens to be armed, then the rest of it makes sense.

Square peg. Round hole.

isadore;1876325 wrote:gosh a ruddies, it comes down to purpose. An insult is meant to demean, a description to portray who actually is. I was being descriptive. Hope you had a nice day and did not buy any illegal firearms.

I've never purchased a firearm of any sort.

If the words are demeaning ... and they were ... then it was an insult. Digging in your heals on your silly non sequitur is only going to hurt your case.

isadore;1876273 wrote:Thank you for your input, you

The word is spelled with a c.

isadore;1876317 wrote:You actually bragged about how simple it would be for you to buy illegal weapon.
Are you a racist? It is a sad joke you tried to accuse me of white privilege. You not I labeled the sellers of illegal guns as black. I never called or implied they were black. I just said you and the sellers were scum. And guess who the majority of them are. The kind of people you associate with.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings “Weapons arrestees are predominantly male, age 18 or over, and white.” https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf
Gosh not even mass murders hang around with the same scum you do. Because consistently they have been unable to acquire automatic weapons. Many of these murders wanted the biggest body count possible. Some like Paddock had extensive resources. But they were unable to acquire the rapid fire guns.
Gosh a ruddies, in 1763 when the occupation began, the colonists considered themselves English and the English army, theirs. It was only in 1776 most began to think of the English as foreigners.
With independence the goal was to rely on militia. The regular army was kept miniscule, kept mainly in the west to fight Indians. When there was a major direct threat militia was used. It was used in 1794 to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.
The fact that the right to bear arms is based on having a militia can be seen in the sentence structure of the amendment. In the rest of the bill of rights, the civil liberties were just listed. But in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment the right to bear arms is tied to a militia to protect a free state.

I suspect a good deal of disingenuousness here... you posted only part of the quote, leaving out, "However, weapons arrest rates per 100,000 are highest for teens and blacks." Moreover the statistics are 22 years old. 2 Pinocchio's bud. Half truths at best...just like all the other stuff you've posted on this thread.