In pictures: US gun-blessing ceremony

[zimmy]

@JohnR
Yes, It is 126 pages. Not going to list the specific individual weapons banned as new models would replace the banned ones.

Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;

· Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;

· Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;

· Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;

It won't pass anyway, but a semi-auto .45 pistol or the semi-auto rifle with a 10 round fixed magazine would be legal if it didn't have a folding stock or the grips.
Did you read something different than that?

[wdmso]

Russian politician Alexander Torshin said his ties to the NRA provided him access to Donald Trump — and the opportunity to serve as a foreign election observer in the United States during the 2012 election.

Just Another cherry off the nothing to see here Tree

[spence]

Russia funneling money through the NRA to help Trump? Say it ain’t so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And you are exceptional at refusing to see what you call cherry picked quotes as what they are ...
Actual statements from real people who lead the narrative and sit in postions of power and represent those who have have elected them

If you only look at quotes as only quotes I can see why you have a hard time seeing the picture they paint ... over time

No, but we drastically disagree on many things.

You led with a tiny and very extreme view of guns and religion, and then moved to Trump. You went and framed the conversation with a tiny fringe (Moonies fer crying out loud??) and then rolled into Trump.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Russia funneling money through the NRA to help Trump? Say it ain’t so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wouldn't be shocked, keep in mind they funnel money everywhere (Workers Parties, CPUSA, Cough Cough) and have for hundreds of years. It's what they do.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

No, but we drastically disagree on many things.

You led with a tiny and very extreme view of guns and religion, and then moved to Trump. You went and framed the conversation with a tiny fringe (Moonies fer crying out loud??) and then rolled into Trump.

I agree

What I presented were all legit stories and statements who common intersection are guns

And only presenting them as reported

And I strongly feel The NRA and it intractable position. On gun control will be the biggest negative impact on all gun owners in the years to come

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I agree

What I presented were all legit stories and statements who common intersection are guns

And only presenting them as reported

And I strongly feel The NRA and it intractable position. On gun control will be the biggest negative impact on all gun owners in the years to come

But the extreme fringe, as if you are trying to categorize everyone supporting 2A as that extreme fringe.

[Nebe]

You can support the 2nd amandment and want strict gun control at the same time. It’s an amazing concept called back ground checks and regulation. I’m not sure why people can grasp this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

But the extreme fringe, as if you are trying to categorize everyone supporting 2A as that extreme fringe.

the extreme fringe are the ones with all the money that are making the most noise.. I am not against the 2a i have said it 10 different ways

But here like most other places like FB if your open to any gun control and again i mean any .. your Anti 2nd Amendment (bump stocks are a good example )

And if your a 2 a supporter and own guns and agree with the need for some gun control your a NRAINO.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You can support the 2nd amandment and want strict gun control at the same time. It’s an amazing concept called back ground checks and regulation. I’m not sure why people can grasp this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I understand better backgrounds checks are necessary but there is also "Shall not be infringed" . So you can't take away the right to bear, and for those that do you had better have due process figured out (regardless of what DT said). Heller stated the public has the right to arms and to used in lawful purpose (ie self defense / home defense).

So lets have a discussion on how to protect 1A, 2A and 4A, 8A, etc and keep people safe. I’m not sure why people can grasp this.



The Bill of Rights is the basis upon which this country is governed and if that is altered there will be unimaginable conflict.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the extreme fringe are the ones with all the money that are making the most noise..

Simply not true, prove it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Yes, I understand better backgrounds checks are necessary but there is also "Shall not be infringed".

This is part of the problem, what exactly shall not be infringed? "Arms" is a pretty vague term and the SCOTUS has clearly stated it's not unlimited.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by spence

This is part of the problem, what exactly shall not be infringed? "Arms" is a pretty vague term and the SCOTUS has clearly stated it's not unlimited.

Right, they blew it with the wording. There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete. There was no way for them to know the 14th amendment would come along and make it apply to state governments, as well as feds. It was 200 years until the Heller decision came along and flipped things on their head.

Context of the writing of the 2nd amendment:
4 million people in US
Private arms were black powder flintlock muskets (a militia would have canons)
At time of writing, only applied to federal laws, states could have completely banned private ownership of arms.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=zimmy;1138798]Right, they blew it with the wording. There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete.

The militia did not refer to "state" militias:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

There was no way for them to know the 14th amendment would come along and make it apply to state governments, as well as feds. It was 200 years until the Heller decision came along and flipped things on their head.

Heller decision didn't flip the original meaning. It asserted, in it's opinion, the original meaning.

Context of the writing of the 2nd amendment:
4 million people in US

Number of people in the entire nation is irrelevant. Most cities have less than 4 million people. Some States do.

Private arms were black powder flintlock muskets (a militia would have canons)

Private arms, flintlock muskets were the "assault" weapons of the day. They were standard military arms. And some private citizens did own canons--legally.

At time of writing, only applied to federal laws, states could have completely banned private ownership of arms.

That was one of the benefits of an armed citizenry. It would not have been possible then for the states to ban ownership of arms. And some of the original 13 state constitutions did establish the right to own and bear arms. And that right had already been established in English common law before the revolution and was considered by the Founders as a universal right.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

This isn't even a real quote, it's two Mason quotes glued together. The second statement was in context of the British Government's attempts to control the subjects in America.

Regardless, Mason's remarks at the debate were against reliance on a standing army (in addition to the risks he thought it posed) in favor of local militias that could be raised when necessary. They would need to be "well regulated" so that states that were called to come to the aid of other states would be sufficiently trained and equipped.

But fast forward a few hundred years and the militias are now really the National Guard, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government.

If you're called up for National Guard duty you don't bring your personal AR-15 in fact you're not even allowed.

How this justifies the average person to have a weapons designed for war is beyond me.

[Sea Dangles]

Jeff, there is a lot of things that are beyond you. But that's alright because you live in a free country where you can voice your disapproval with an occasional clear thought. I respect that we live in an evolving country that has an unique way of balancing things out when they go askew. Things will slowly improve,hopefully to where only the good guys have Whatever type of firearm they want to shoot paper with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by spence

How this justifies the average person to have a weapons designed for war is beyond me.

According to the supreme court, it doesn't. There are tons of banned weapons. There were weapons banned under 1994 law. They could be banned again if/when congress or individual states decide to do it. Legal precedent supports it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Jeff, there is a lot of things that are beyond you.

So adorable

[Pete F.]

Unfortunately this argument has moved from what would reasonable people do to "weapons designed for war"
All weapons were designed for war is how some people think of guns. I read a letter to the editor the other day that said "it is just a matter of time till the owner of these guns decides to kill people with them".
This won't be solved until the two just a matter of time groups (decide to kill and slippery slope) come together and find some middle ground.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn't even a real quote, it's two Mason quotes glued together. The second statement was in context of the British Government's attempts to control the subjects in America.

The first part is the important part related to what was meant by militia: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." This meaning was held in common at the time.

Regardless, Mason's remarks at the debate were against reliance on a standing army (in addition to the risks he thought it posed) in favor of local militias that could be raised when necessary. They would need to be "well regulated" so that states that were called to come to the aid of other states would be sufficiently trained and equipped.

But fast forward a few hundred years and the militias are now really the National Guard, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government.

No, the National Guard is not the militia. The National Guard is the National Guard. The militia, as understood in writing the Constitution was not funded by the federal government. It was The People, not just a select group prepared for duty funded by the federal government.

If you're called up for National Guard duty you don't bring your personal AR-15 in fact you're not even allowed.

How this justifies the average person to have a weapons designed for war is beyond me.

It is beyond you because your understanding of the Constitution is not informed by the actual language and meaning used to write the Constitution, but informed by Progressive revisionism--so-called interpretation which is actually a rewriting, a changing, outside of the legal and proper amendment process.

Here is a good explication of the meanings of the words in the 2A contemporaneous to the time it was written. It is a little bit longish, not too much, just very thorough and a really good guide to understanding the 2A.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-te...cond-Amendment

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The first part is the important part related to what was meant by militia: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." This meaning was held in common at the time.

Yes, because there was no National Guard.

No, the National Guard is not the militia. The National Guard is the National Guard. The militia, as understood in writing the Constitution was not funded by the federal government. It was The People, not just a select group prepared for duty funded by the federal government.

Because the militia has evolved. The National Guard is now the militia, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government. This is law.

It is beyond you because your understanding of the Constitution is not informed by the actual language and meaning used to write the Constitution, but informed by Progressive revisionism--so-called interpretation which is actually a rewriting, a changing, outside of the legal and proper amendment process.

To be fair I've read Mason's entire debate transcript in full along with others in context. I don't really read progressive sources on this stuff as it's better to get to the roots. When I decided to make my first pizza from scratch I read up on how to grow wheat. It's how I roll.

[Pete F.]

Just remember that when they passed the 19th Amendment, some said it might come back to bite you in the ass. This might be that issue.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I respect that we live in an evolving country that has an unique way of balancing things out when they go askew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Smartest thing I’ve read yet, that is the beauty of the good old USA, our system of government has so far won the test of time. It survived world wars, conflicts of all nature around the globe; I suspect we will live through Trump, little rocket man and if we are proactive Putin’s meddling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, because there was no National Guard.
Because the militia has evolved. The National Guard is now the militia, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government. This is law.

"Evolved" is the Progressive way of saying changed by Court or legislative fiat without actually amending.

To be fair I've read Mason's entire debate transcript in full along with others in context. I don't really read progressive sources on this stuff as it's better to get to the roots. When I decided to make my first pizza from scratch I read up on how to grow wheat. It's how I roll.

Mason said what I quoted. There are several other of the Founders who said essentially the same thing--they basically all believed the same thing. The Progressive "sources" are the actual "interpretive" fiat changes that you espouse and which were made without using the amendment process.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Simply not true, prove it.

You just did ..

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Mason said what I quoted. There are several other of the Founders who said essentially the same thing--they basically all believed the same thing. The Progressive "sources" are the actual "interpretive" fiat changes that you espouse and which were made without using the amendment process.

Your "fiat changes" are part of the system they created and are the law of the land.

Also, your quotes were improperly placed. It was a made up quote. You know how these ""'s work right???

My "sources" are the words of the founding Fathers.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just remember that when they passed the 19th Amendment, some said it might come back to bite you in the ass. This might be that issue.

I've heard persuasive theories that giving women the right to vote is responsible for changing our political culture from an individualistic and legalistic male orientation emphasizing freedom and self responsibility to a nurturing female socialistic orientation which emphasizes a collective, communal, responsibility to care for one another embodied in by a "Motherly" State. On the other hand, a misogynist who didn't take care of his own family, Karl Marx created the foundation for that collective Mother State.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Your "fiat changes" are part of the system they created and are the law of the land.

They are part of the system like cancer is a part of a system.

Also, your quotes were improperly placed. It was a made up quote. You know how these ""'s work right???

Regardless of placement, Mason did say those things, especially the part about the militia being the whole people. And several others who debated the formation of the Constitution basically said the same thing.

My "sources" are the words of the founding Fathers.

Which words?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They are part of the system like cancer is a part of a system.

This is like saying you believe in God but God is the problem. You're making little sense today.

Regardless of placement, Mason did say those things, especially the part about the militia being the whole people. And several others who debated the formation of the Constitution basically said the same thing.

At the time there was a debate if the United States should have a standing army or if our national defense should be composed of militias as defined at that time. You don't seem to want to include this in your thought process. Context for these remarks really does matter, and laws passed since then under the Constitutional framework they agreed to matter as well.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This is like saying you believe in God but God is the problem. You're making little sense today.

You said: "Your 'fiat changes' are part of the system they [The Founders] created and are the law of the land." To which I responded "They are part of the system like cancer is a part of a system."

Fiat Changes, changes made without using the amendment process are not part of the system the Founders created.

To use your God analogy, my response would by like saying that my disobeying God's commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge as stated in the laws of His "system," in The Garden of Eden, would be my "fiat" creation of a sin, a sort of cancer in God's system--a destruction of the Garden.

Or, more simply put, not following proper procedure is like throwing a monkey wrench into the works.

A cancer becomes a part of a system by debilitating it, and eventually destroying it. Changing the Constitution by fiat decision rather than properly amending it, weakens it, becomes, at first, a small precedent like a beginning cancer, and expands, by that precedent, as a method to change, eventually to entirely subvert the way it is made to work, eventually to make it null and void, replaced with something different, a giant tumor of law by whim.


At the time there was a debate if the United States should have a standing army or if our national defense should be composed of militias as defined at that time. You don't seem to want to include this in your thought process. Context for these remarks really does matter, and laws passed since then under the Constitutional framework they agreed to matter as well.

My thought process was in response to zimmy's "There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete." Militia being, at that time, the whole people, zimmy's notion would mean that the whole people would become obsolete. In which case, there would be no need of a Constitution, or anything else.

I knew there was a debate about the danger of a standing army at that time. I mentioned that recently in another thread. The Quora link I posted above mentions the Anti-Federalist's (Mason was an Anti-Federalist) fear of a standing federal army, and Mason specifically feared that what he, and the other Founders, understood the militia to be ("the whole people") would someday be changed and would be replaced by those unfaithful to what the Founders were attempting, and would replace it with various forms of standing armies.

To a great extent, Mason was right to hold that fear.