crickets...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

On its face, this is one of the most absurd statements I have ever, ever, read.

But, like some of the cryptic things Trump says, maybe there is some rationale, even truth, in what you say. Can you please explain what you mean here, because your statement, as it is, makes no sense. It is totally divorced from sense. It verges, if it doesn't actually get there, on lunacy.

So are you suggesting everyone who helped craft it agreed . On its all its details ... history says no.. 2017 and people are still seeking answers on its intent in the modern world .. so yes sea dangle is correct it's like the bible you see what you want to see

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Do I respond as if you are serious that fully automatic weapons were really at issue in the cases I mentioned or Heller?

Isn't that the point? Heller acknowledged for the moment the individual right to a gun for defense, but not a universal right to any weapon for any reason.

I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people. The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.

Here's a good piece written by a friends cousin.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ushpmg00000003

Drove by the Mandalay Bay last week...haunting.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So are you suggesting everyone who helped craft it agreed . On its all its details ... history says no..

Of course there was disagreement. It was a convention in order to hammer out a constitution. Everyone had opinions on what would make the best constitution. But they did not disagree on the meaning of the words. There was disagreement by some, the Anti-Federalists, on how much power the proposed constitution gave to the federal government. If anything, those who initially, or finally, opposed ratification, did so on the grounds that the central government would be too strong. But compromises were made, and, in the end, only three delegates did not choose to sign on to ratification.

So the signers all finally agreed to the Constitution. They agreed on what the words meant. They agreed on its checks and balances. They agreed on which powers the central government should and would have. They even, post ratification, included, per compromise, the insertion of a Bill of Rights--again, to make certain that the central government could not abridge those rights. They agreed that the people and the states would retain the vast residuum of rights which were not granted to the central government.

Again, the disagreements were not on meaning. They were on how much power the central government would have. Those who disagreed with the Constitution on that ground, would be the very ones whose arguments would absolutely oppose any power the central government could have to restrict any natural right. They wouldn't have wanted the central government to have much, if any, more power than it had in the articles of confederation. And the rest, who signed on to ratification, agreed that the federal government would have, and only have, those powers enumerated to it in the Constitution. And they all agreed as to the meanings of the words that spelled out those enumerations of power. And those meanings stood up, as intended, for a century or more, before Progressivism started to "interpret" those words.

So don't go to the "Founders disagreed" notion as some justification for loose interpretation of the Constitution.

2017 and people are still seeking answers on its intent in the modern world .. so yes sea dangle is correct it's like the bible you see what you want to see

This "seeking answers on its intent in the modern world" notion is a result of an "intent" other than that of the Framer's Constitution. It is the intent of Progressives to impose layer upon layer of legislation upon and against the text of the Constitution in order to legally justify what is not "interpretation" but actually a rewriting of it, or, by proxy or deception, the creation of a new unwritten constitution. One whose meaning and intent run counter to the text of the Constitution.

The "intention" of the Constitution was to impose restrictions on the "intentions" of those in government who would, for whatever reason, good or ill, dictate rules and regulations which would deny the people their natural rights.

Those natural rights were based not on technological advances or the fashions of the day. They were based on human nature. On how humans assert power. On how humans desire freedom. The intention of the Constitution is to limit the power some humans can have over other humans. To assure the optimum freedom of individuals REGARDLESS OF WHICH TIME IN WHICH THEY LIVE. The "times" are fleeting, the nature of man, so long as humans exist, abides.

As far as I know, humans have not yet evolved into something other than they were in the 18th century. And the same desire of some to rule others, as witnessed in "our time," has not changed.

And if you pay attention to what Progressive doctrine has been since its inception, unless, as Sea Dangles would say, you are "smitten" by its promises, you will see that it has nothing to do with actual constitutional governance. Quite the contrary, it is about circumventing or gradually replacing that governance with an unlimited rule of supposed experts.

And no, it's not like the Bible. It's not about rules for getting to heaven. It is about life on earth. About human interaction with humans written by humans for humans. It is about "Caesar's" power not God's. Since God did not hold a convention, we don't have an actual written document of disputes and resolutions related by actual witnesses to the event. The Bible requires belief in that which cannot be known.

The Constitution is secular law. Such law cannot be "successful because people can't agree on what it means" as you put it. That is nonsense. If there is no agreement on what secular law means, then no-one would know how to comply with such law. Such law would not only be useless, it would contradict the very nature of law.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.

listen to this video, the answers are here as to possible reasons they are increasing and what can be done to deter it because banning guns is not the answer, guns don't shoot themselves.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people.

You should not be able to find ANY!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

listen to this video, the answers are here as to possible reasons they are increasing and what can be done to deter it because banning guns is not the answer, guns don't shoot themselves.

Perhaps positioning the gun is an accomplice would lead to a more holistic approach.

[Got Stripers]

Great points made in that video, the news sensationalizes these events, whether it's a domestic violence shooting, road rage or these mass shootings. Very valid and I believe spot on, however I also believe bad gun vs good gun, or bad hunting rifle vs good hunting rifle would have lessened the head counts on many of these incidents.

I never suggested, nor would I see a need to limit the sales of guns, rifles, shotguns, you name it; I would however agree with legislation that either eliminates these assault rifles, accessories that allow them to increase the ammo they can discharge per clip or the rate it can be discharged. Our founding fathers limited the sales of arms, gun powder and who could own them; legislating for the public's safety is not a new idea.

The other point in this video is that these nuts want their 15 minutes of fame because they are sick, off their meds or are having problems dealing with some crisis in their lives, getting them mental health help isn't something we should be making harder to get. Not all will take advantage or if they do benefit from it, but it should be available like the free mental health program MGH supports for veterans.

Society and the government view the drug problem as an epidemic with 59,000+ deaths in 2016, why would the deaths from gun violence not be viewed the same way? Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled 2a program.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Great points made in that video, the news sensationalizes these events, whether it's a domestic violence shooting, road rage or these mass shootings. Very valid and I believe spot on, however I also believe bad gun vs good gun, or bad hunting rifle vs good hunting rifle would have lessened the head counts on many of these incidents.

I never suggested, nor would I see a need to limit the sales of guns, rifles, shotguns, you name it; I would however agree with legislation that either eliminates these assault rifles, accessories that allow them to increase the ammo they can discharge per clip or the rate it can be discharged. Our founding fathers limited the sales of arms, gun powder and who could own them; legislating for the public's safety is not a new idea.

The other point in this video is that these nuts want their 15 minutes of fame because they are sick, off their meds or are having problems dealing with some crisis in their lives, getting them mental health help isn't something we should be making harder to get. Not all will take advantage or if they do benefit from it, but it should be available like the free mental health program MGH supports for veterans.

Society and the government view the drug problem as an epidemic with 59,000+ deaths in 2016, why would the deaths from gun violence not be viewed the same way? Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled 2a program.

Nor would I ... But the 2a people will always argue and only hear confiscation. unless you agree with them 100%

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ublic-attacks/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Nor would I ... But the 2a people will always argue and only hear confiscation. unless you agree with them 100%

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ublic-attacks/

Agreed. On this issue you see a lot of conservatives (not any here I don't think, but definitely on the TV) who act like if you think that there should be any restrictions, then you are necessarily in favor of trashing the constitution and imposing tyranny. It's very difficult to have a rational conversation on this topic with many conservatives. I don't believe (obviously) my side is irrational on a lot of issues, but on this one...a lot of scare tactics from my side.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Nor would I ... But the 2a people will always argue and only hear confiscation. unless you agree with them 100%

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ublic-attacks/

There is NOTHING in the article that says this is the ONLY thing the writers hear. It is A thing they reported, and which YOU called to our attention. Thank you. Wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't pointed it out.

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Nor would I ... But the 2a people will always argue and only hear confiscation. unless you agree with them 100%

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ublic-attacks/

Well, remember also the mission of Breitbart is primarily to stir the pot and push conspiracy theories...or just outright lie.

Thank god nobody from that organization ever had their hands in US policy.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, remember also the mission of Breitbart is primarily to stir the pot and push conspiracy theories...or just outright lie.

Thank god nobody from that organization ever had their hands in US policy.

Actually, I remember the mission of Breitbart to be different than your BS portrayal. Nor is your BS relevant to my response to wdmso.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, I remember the mission of Breitbart to be different than your BS portrayal. Nor is your BS relevant to my response to wdmso.

What, to destroy the GOP establishment and replace it with a corrupt, anti-American, racist, bigoted and misogynistic perversion of a party?

Sounds like a great mission.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

What, to destroy the GOP establishment and replace it with a corrupt, anti-American, racist, bigoted and misogynistic perversion of a party?

Sounds like a great mission.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Breitbart is not racist, corrupt, anti-American, bigoted, or misogynistic. The GOP and much more so the Democrat parties have been corrupted from what used to be American into a globalist, elitist, authoritarian cabal. I understand from your posts that you are enamored of such corruption. It makes you a bigot in support of it.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Breitbart is not racist, corrupt, anti-American, bigoted, or misogynistic. The GOP and much more so the Democrat parties have been corrupted from what used to be American into a globalist, elitist, authoritarian cabal. I understand from your posts that you are enamored of such corruption. It makes you a bigot in support of it.

The original brietbart wasnt. The Steve bannon version is most of those things.

How does the NWO fit in to your rant?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

The original brietbart wasnt. The Steve bannon version is most of those things.

How does the NWO fit in to your rant?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bannon is not the whole of Breitbart. But, OK, fill me in on how he is most of those things. And my "rant" was in response to Spence's rant. Like begets like.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

Yes and no.

the answer is "YES"....the original intent of the NFA was to tax, regulate and create a National Registry for all firearms...not to "outlaw machine guns"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What, to destroy the GOP establishment and replace it with a corrupt, anti-American, racist, bigoted and misogynistic perversion of a party?

Sounds like a great mission.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you forgot homophobic, xenophobic, nativist, capitalist, sexist, ageist, fundamentalist, radical, extremist....wait...I think you've been predicting the destruction of the GOP establishment for like 15 years...are you suggesting we're finally here?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So are you suggesting everyone who helped craft it agreed . On its all its details ... history says no.. 2017 and people are still seeking answers on its intent in the modern world .. so yes sea dangle is correct it's like the bible you see what you want to see

neither were written to confuse....but to clarify....those "seeking answers" regarding "intent" are usually seeking ways around the "intent" ...but, hey...here in the "modern world" where we see what we want to see....of what matter is "intent"

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is NOTHING in the article that says this is the ONLY thing the writers hear. It is A thing they reported, and which YOU called to our attention. Thank you. Wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't pointed it out.

I guess you missed (Firearm Confiscation ) in the lead banner

The comment section is a hoot ..

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

What, to destroy the GOP establishment and replace it with a corrupt, anti-American, racist, bigoted and misogynistic perversion of a party?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great post.

That sleazy group is trying their hardest to dig up dirt on Moore's accusers. I wonder if they will come up with a video?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Great post.

That sleazy group is trying their hardest to dig up dirt on Moore's accusers.

they should put Hillary in charge..she needs a job and has experience

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps positioning the gun is an accomplice would lead to a more holistic approach.

I'm not sure what you are saying here but perhaps not since you don't make sense at all.

We don't position Budweiser an accomplice in drunk driving accidents and deaths now do we? Yet there are some who want to blame manufacturers for cause of deaths and it is going on in CT. but that is a different case

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I guess you missed (Firearm Confiscation ) in the lead banner

The comment section is a hoot ..

Having an opinion, no matter how strong your opinion is, does not mean that you have not heard the other side, or sides. It means you believe your "side" is right.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Great post.

That sleazy group is trying their hardest to dig up dirt on Moore's accusers. I wonder if they will come up with a video?

Sleazy is in the eye of the beholder. Some eyes would behold digging up dirt on Moore was sleazy.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Isn't that the point?

No. Is there a initiative worthy of noting to do away with any NFA-34 regulations other than removing suppressors from Title II? Is there any court case pending that is challenging the NFA-34 restrictions on machine guns?

Originally Posted by spence

Heller acknowledged for the moment the individual right to a gun for defense,

"The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). "

DC v. HELLER, 478 F. 3d 370, 2008 (Breyer, S., dissenting)

Essentially the 4 Heller dissenters signed on to two opinions that said the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right and Breyer's dissent (which the other three dissenters signed) states that individual right interpretation is a continuance of the Court's precedent. So, your "for the moment" is actually "forever".

Originally Posted by spence

but not a universal right to any weapon for any reason.

Correct. The right to possess and use arms that fail the protection criteria is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. These are sometimes refereed to "dangerous and unusual" arms which is a legally specific term, not an descriptor that the government gets to argue for restrictions, see Aymette v State as cited in Miller.

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people.

Congratulations! Of all the questions about the constitutionality of "gun control", that one, "taking away the handguns from law-abiding people" has been answered unequivocally.

If you are saying that to try to assuage gun rights supporter's fears that you don't want "too" much, well I'll just say, good for you, at least you're gonna save yourself that embarrassment.

Originally Posted by spence

The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.

Semi-auto detachable magazine rifles -- sometimes refereed to as "assault weapons"-- are NOT machineguns under any applicable law . . . Which again forces me to ask, why are you bringing full-auto guns into the conversation?

Originally Posted by spence

Here's a good piece written by a friends cousin.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ushpmg00000003

It certainly is a pro-gun control commentary.

I appreciate that for some detrimental public issues it is acknowledged that we should do "everything we can do" to stop some problems. If only that was applied to the criminal misuse of guns. Of course all that's proposed to reduce gun misuse is the same-old-same-old, demanding laws we already have and doing stuff that's already mandated in law.

Yawn.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon..

Agreed. This is a totally different topic from garden-variety street crime.

These mass shootings are often carried out (when not acts of Islamic jihad) by warped, frustrated weirdos. Obviously, the sexy look of these guns appeals to the Rambo-wannabe psyche of these people. The gun manufacturer counts on that...that's why these guns (which don't function like machine guns) are made to resemble military weaponry, as much as humanly possible. If these guns function like boring rifles, there is a very specific reason the manufacturers do everything they can, to make them look like assault rifles.

The visual appearance of these weapons, fuels the fantasies, of a lot of us. This is exactly why so many people buy these AR-15 type rifles, instead of buying a rifle that functions the same way, but looks a lot more boring. Some of those fantasies, most in fact, are harmless. Some are very wicked.

To deny this, is to be incapable of rational thought on the issue.

I don't think I'd support a ban on "rifles that are intended to look like assault rifles but really are not", probably because there are so many already out there, a ban would have little impact. I would support a ban on accessories that modify the functionality of these weapons, to make them function more like military weaponry. I absolutely support those bans, (bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc) and that doesn't come close to meaning that I'm in favor of shredding the constitution and imposing tyranny.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To deny this, is to be incapable of rational thought on the issue.

you crack me up

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

We don't position Budweiser an accomplice in drunk driving accidents and deaths now do we? Yet there are some who want to blame manufacturers for cause of deaths and it is going on in CT. but that is a different case

In that case the beer is the emotional issue and the car the weapon. Hence why we have laws against drunk driving regardless if you hurt another person or not.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I absolutely support those bans, (bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc) and that doesn't come close to meaning that I'm in favor of shredding the constitution and imposing tyranny.

Nope, you're now a flaming liberal.