That was about all he could "bear." And his rifle was the "assault" weapon of the day. AR15's are not even as "assault" worthy as the automatic weapons that todays soldiers have.

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Zimmy, your beating your head against the proverbial 2A wall, I've used that argument to no avail many times. Logically back then there was more of a level playing field between a large group of colonialists and either their old (UK) government or their newly formed government, an armed militia could make a difference. Back then that logic worked because of the equality of weaponry, it doesn't work today. I don't care how many hand gun owners, shotgun owners, deer rifle toting militia or ever AR15 owners you put up against our military or any modern military; you loose 100 out of 100 tries.

Then I'd like to see how many pick up those weapons to fight our newly formed tyrannical government and who is calling them to arms, the entire argument is flawed. Oh don't get me wrong I believe in the 2A, but taking it to the extreme as weapons of mass destruction get more and more advanced is just not making sense IMHO. Love to hear the logistical argument for forming this constitutionally given right to bear arms and form this militia. Is the NRA going to send out an email to all you owners telling you the time has come to pick up arms to eliminate what they feel is an overreaching government?

I understand this country was founded on principles and a constitution protecting our individual freedoms, but do you think that evolving with the times isn't something these same forward thinking gentlemen would have felt essential if this country was to survive? Back then women had no rights at all, why have we given them any, if that is the way our founding fathers believed it should be. I'm certain many of those same founding fathers owned slaves, why have we given them freedoms they didn't deserve back when that document was penned?

Zimmy this is a circular argument, it never changes, the arguments remain the same, start at point A and you will eventually return there.

This is not fair. Remember plenty retire at 45 than move to another job in the system to grab another 10.

And more rights were correctly granted in time.

The default of human history has been tyranny, slavery, and oppression. Freedom (even whittled away as suggested by the Nebster), beats the alternative. The Constitution is a road map on how to guide the country forward, to maintain some level of Freedom and Liberty. They even created a mechanism of the people to amend and replace parts of the Constitution. How prescient.

Yep, there is room for compromise but it is not being given room. If you banned AR15s tomorrow, what would it change? If you had a reliable and unusable solution to prevent unstable people from having access to ARs, would it not be better? How can you get their without violating other people's rights?

To carry a weapon also implies its use otherwise what's the point? If the ability to serve in a militia was bound by the weight of the arms you'd think that would have been called out. It really doesn't make any sense.

That an AR-15 isn't fully auto doesn't really matter. It's still a military design and from what I understand using an M-16/MP4 full auto is usually a waste of ammunition and something most in the infantry would rarely do.

Yes, we as an evolving society, realized that not allowing women the same rights (power isn't even close) as men, was wrong. With the help of another forward thinking man, good old Abe understood that enslaving your fellow man is wrong; moving to change the thinking of the times. We have changed John, our society has made an unimaginable leap since our forefathers penned the constitution; that span of time is why thinking must change.

As difficult as times might have been when my parents (rest their soles) entered adulthood, at least you shared the values of your neighbors, your community and a common purpose always seemed to be at hand.

Oh and by the way, for those militia rights die hards, who is coordinating this move to arms, better have some very special IT skilled, capable of hacking all government servers types ready in the wings, because guess who's watching and listening to you. Cell phones, oops guess again, they will be listening. Oh I know we all are equipped with ham radios and communication and coordination will NOT be an issue; this entire argument is comical.

And the come back to the above paragraph, is this is why the 2A was written and there Zimmy we get back to point A; isn't it fun?

That an AR15 does not go Fully Auto or Selective Fire DO matter as to where a rifle is a military weapon or not. You can hang a grenade launcher underneath if you re in the military (and your superiors approve) but you cannot legally do it on a civilian firearm.

There are other considerable differences as well. I know of one that looks scary but frankly would melt and fail if you placed it under the rigors of actual combat, selective fire, or full auto.

Oh and Legal Definitions Matter

:wall:

Old Abe (if I could go back in time that would be the one thing I would sure fix - Ford Theater) actually significantly increased the power of the Federal Government during his time.

Not me - No Militia IT guy here. For Reals.

P.S. Go look up the Socialist Rifle Association.

So lemme get this straight - if DJT wanted to pull a XI Zedong and become President for life - you wouldn't want citizens saying NO?

The militia aspect is relevant to the self-government aspect. If the people are armed and consider themselves a militia, for instance, mass school shootings, Chicago gun violence, gang violence, drug cartel violence, border protection issues, criminal assaults, corrupt local law enforcement tyrannies, could be eliminated or lessened to a tiny minimum, and a host of other things including rescues, disaster relief and rebuilding of communities and so forth, could be handled more quickly at local levels rather than depending on national agencies. The civic and civil nature of citizen self-government would be far, far more prominent in our national psyche than it is now in our current dependence on the federal government and the POTUS, to solve our problems. The danger of continuous movement to large, bureaucratic, centralized government with its growing control of the nation's market in fascistic tandem with large centralized corporate monopolies, and its need to gain and keep power by taking on to itself the individual responsibilities inherent in a self regulating society, and which sucks the initiative/motivation out of nearly half the population, could all be put back into the Pandora's box of creeping tyranny that is now occurring.

At the "time of writing" the citizens did not have the same weapons as the federal government. But they had a federal government which was faithful to the Constitution that they had all written. They had federal and state politicians who knew that subverting that Constitution, "interpreting" it in deceitful ways that transferred newly guaranteed individual powers and rights from the people to the central government, would be an end to the great experiment in individual freedom they had just created. Preservation of the constitutional order was a far greater goal for them than the quest for power. The Constitution they had just written was a check and balance against the quest for power.

The notion that the federal government will use the federal army and air force to come after Americans on American soil goes against all the founding, constitutional values of this nation. If it gets to such a place, it will be because we the people have allowed it. Because we have given up our Constitutional powers and transferred them to a government that we thought would give us security instead of the liberty with responsibility that the Constitution ordained and established for us.

The notion that the government would use F-22's and all the massive firepower of the federal armed forces against citizens of this country is even more foolish than the notion that people would try to resist such force with handguns and AR15's. The optics would be horrible.

And if we have truly arrived at such a place, then blame those who in the past 100 years kept voting for a government that promised to do for us what we had the responsibility to do for ourselves.

See that's where this argument just gets crazy for me, can I assume that DJT has control over the military or not? If not then no the military and the good men and women it the service of our country will take care of things and no citizens militia is needed. If yes then I fall back to my previous post and we are all screwed and no amount of armed citizens is going to make a hill of beans difference.

If not, then per your assumption about the good men and women in the military, we can assume that we don't need to be concerned about the oft proffered scenario of F-22's and the massive firepower of the federal military devastating the militia.

If yes, how would we have gotten to such a state given the wonderful evolution of society over time which is supposed to require changes made in the Constitution to make it serve the here and now? As it was originally written, the Constitution gave Congress the power to check the President by not funding his escapades, including military ventures.

Actually, the "evolution" of the Constitution over time without use of amendment (actually the "ignoring" is more apt than the "evolution") has brought us closer to an unchecked central power than was possible under the faithfulness to the pre-evolved (pre-ignored) Constitution.

So the thought is that armed revolutions are more successful than unarmed ones.
Statistically over the past 50 years how true is that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well you have twisted that around for sure, but no if Trump goes off the rails and wants to suddenly proclaim himself the next coming and the military isn't in his pocket, I suspect our neighbors, friends and relatives serving will right the ship and kick his ass to the curb, so no I'm not worried. But if you have added a third alternative, where DJT goes off the rails, the military stop him, but then hungry for power decide to declare military law, that's my alternate #2; we are screwed and all your 38 magnums, 12 ga, deer rifles and AR-15s aren't going so save your butts.

If the constitution were written in stone 300 years ahead of when it was written, I suspect you would still be interpreting it literary as you see those early people meant it to be interpreted.

The Constitution is not a codex of civil or criminal laws which can often become obsolete under new technological or social/cultural conditions. It is merely a structure under which the federal government works. It is a political structure, not meant to respond to specific technological or cultural advances per se, but only if they fall into the one of the broad categories of power (enumerations) that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate.

It is a system designed to constrain government from oppressing individuals. It is designed to promote optimal individual freedom, not to promote or regulate individual or collective, or scientific behaviors. It is based on human nature, human proclivities to desire power to rule others by coercion. It is meant to be the most viable blueprint for protecting natural rights as well as the freedom to express those rights, to fully achieve individual potentials, to protect the market place of ideas and the marketplace of commerce. It is meant to be a means toward equality for all before the law. And it provides the means to change the structure if needed.

Human nature has not changed in 300 years. Human proclivities have not changed. What is there to be interpreted differently in our structure of government in order to still protect natural rights and the expression of those rights? And why, if the people demand it, couldn't the Constitution be amended to address a better way instead of doing so by fiat?

Difficult problems of "interpretation" usually arise when government wishes to impose regulation for which the Constitution does not give it the power to do so, and it wants to get around and beyond those constitutional limitations. In most of those cases it is a question of government reaching beyond the power granted to one of its particular branches. Honest constitutional judges would resolve such disputes simply by determining if the government claim actually fits into one of its enumerated powers which are few, but broadly worded so that any issue could be determined whether or not it fell into the purview of government power to regulate. If not, the regulation should be struck down as unconstitutional. If so, it should be allowed as constitutional no matter how unpopular it might be. The government has no rights outside of its enumerated powers. But it has plenary, basically unlimited, power within those enumerations. What more does it need unless it desires to deny individual rights in favor of gaining more power to itself?

But judges who believe that government should not be constrained, especially if it purports to do what they personally consider social good, regardless of how it affects the structure of the Constitution, and therefor how it affects individual liberties, such judges, in liaison with Progressive politicians, over time and with compounded precedent, corrupt and destroy the constitutional structure. And what is left is not a framework that protects individual rights, but a government that determines what your rights are. And those rights, under such an unstructured and basically unconstrained system, will constantly and frequently change.

So, yes. If the Constitution was written 300 years earlier and had the same structure, I would interpret it in the way it was originally composed.

So because you can buy them now, but you couldn't in 1995, and you can't buy a DAU 19 or rpg today, makes it funny that we are convinced we are right. You must have done great with properties of equality in school :claps:

Didn't do great with reading comp, I bet . We think the wording allows the government to make them unattainable, not that the wording itself makes them unattainable.

Earth to Zimmy
This is 2018 and what you think is obviously NOT what the government thinks. But you keep pretending you know more and Let us know how it works out for you. Good luck my reading comp savant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the same people that can't seem to understand what "the right of the people" means...think that socialiam/communism is better than Capitalism/Freedom....funny that

Yep. The same people that think if you give others lots of power they will wield it beneficially and kindly.

Yea, people being able to legally buy these weapons and then shoot up schools is freaking hilarious.

I hope your not serious Jeff, that is no laughing matter. I hope you are ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am pretty sure "the government" think they can ban ownership of AR-15, Tommy guns, dau 19, rpgs. Some members may not want to, but all of those have been and all but one are banned. But you know that. Alternative facts, alternate reality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At least you have the courage to respond to what I actually wrote instead of the gutless response I got from Spence. Good luck with your reform, I think the results speak for themselves.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you ever add anything other than criticizing others posts?

Thank you Paul. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery . You never answered if you got raped,would you blame the penis?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God you have a thin skin when you get called out.

Is that what happened Jeff,you called me out?. I just thought you didn't understand what I had posted and responded with your typical jibberish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure I did, go back and look. Silly questions deserve silly responses.

Proves my point.