Predict how long before????

[bigrebnc1775]

You misdefine and misargue. Yes, the government has the right to define what is permissible and not permissible to own., as Henry and Miller are very clear.

What do you expect, they can't even define 'assault weapon' and they want to ban them...

Idiots!

What the fuck is henry and miller?

Starkey what I want to know is, what is henry and miller?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Common Usage" as you understand it is not the law.

Good, I am glad you don't want' a bazooka. I know that bigrebnc thinks the unorganized militia should have anything the organized military has.

Silly people.

 

[MikeK]

Why is well regulated not the operative word?

"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 New Republic
A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - The voice of Interior Alaska since 1903

'A proposal for rational gun control' A Case for Gun Control.

"Well regulated" doesn't mean the same thing today that it meant when the Document was drafted. And because language does evolve in meaning and usage over time the factor of Original Intent must be considered whenever questions of this nature arise with reference to the Constitution.

The intent of the Framers when drafting the Second Amendment was to ensure that the People would not be barred from owning ("keeping and bearing") firearms. And because the words hunting and recreation do not appear in the Amendment its obvious purpose is to enable the People to resist government oppression -- as in armed rebellion.

Contrary to popular belief the reference to "militia" in the Second Amendment does not mean the National Guard, which is a standing army under government control. The "militia" in the time when the Constitution was drafted was every able-bodied male citizen. So it logically follows that "well-regulated militia" meant the keeping of lists of such male citizens and their locations to be summoned when needed.

 

[rightwinger]

Why is well regulated not the operative word?

"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 New Republic
A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - The voice of Interior Alaska since 1903

'A proposal for rational gun control' A Case for Gun Control.

"Well regulated" doesn't mean the same thing today that it meant when the Document was drafted. And because language does evolve in meaning and usage over time the factor of Original Intent must be considered whenever questions of this nature arise with reference to the Constitution.

The intent of the Framers when drafting the Second Amendment was to ensure that the People would not be barred from owning ("keeping and bearing") firearms. And because the words hunting and recreation do not appear in the Amendment its obvious purpose is to enable the People to resist government oppression -- as in armed rebellion.

Contrary to popular belief the reference to "militia" in the Second Amendment does not mean the National Guard, which is a standing army under government control. The "militia" in the time when the Constitution was drafted was every able-bodied male citizen. So it logically follows that "well-regulated militia" meant the keeping of lists of such male citizens and their locations to be summoned when needed.

Nonsense

Militias were well regulated at the time. In some cases, participation was mandatory for able bodied men. They trained, had a command structure and were required to provide their own weapons.

They did not fear government oppression. They feared invasion, they feared Indians

 

[OODA_Loop]

"Common Usage" as you understand it is not the law.

Good, I am glad you don't want' a bazooka. I know that bigrebnc thinks the unorganized militia should have anything the organized military has.

Silly people.

Bazooka are not in common usage. Thought the inert "Bazooka" launcher itself is legal to own, each explosive round is considered a Destructive Device under the National Firearms Act approved by Congress in 1934.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If original intent is related to the actual conditions of society and the militia then, then common sense tells us that when it is related to our times, that the actual conditions of society and our armed forces and citizenry now prevail. The Founders undoubtedly would approve of the National Guard and reserves.

The Founders would be tickled the Dan Shays of our day are not running around with gatling guns.

 

[OODA_Loop]

'the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)

 

[GuyPinestra]

Why is well regulated not the operative word?

"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 New Republic
A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - The voice of Interior Alaska since 1903

'A proposal for rational gun control' A Case for Gun Control.

"Well regulated" doesn't mean the same thing today that it meant when the Document was drafted. And because language does evolve in meaning and usage over time the factor of Original Intent must be considered whenever questions of this nature arise with reference to the Constitution.

The intent of the Framers when drafting the Second Amendment was to ensure that the People would not be barred from owning ("keeping and bearing") firearms. And because the words hunting and recreation do not appear in the Amendment its obvious purpose is to enable the People to resist government oppression -- as in armed rebellion.

Contrary to popular belief the reference to "militia" in the Second Amendment does not mean the National Guard, which is a standing army under government control. The "militia" in the time when the Constitution was drafted was every able-bodied male citizen. So it logically follows that "well-regulated militia" meant the keeping of lists of such male citizens and their locations to be summoned when needed.

Nonsense

Militias were well regulated at the time. In some cases, participation was mandatory for able bodied men. They trained, had a command structure and were required to provide their own weapons.

They did not fear government oppression. They feared invasion, they feared Indians

Bullshit!! Read some of the arguments during the writing of the Constitution. Government oppression was what they feared the MOST.

Turns out they were pretty fucking smart, too.

 

[GuyPinestra]

If original intent is related to the actual conditions of society and the militia then, then common sense tells us that when it is related to our times, that the actual conditions of society and our armed forces and citizenry now prevail. The Founders undoubtedly would approve of the National Guard and reserves.

The Founders would be tickled the Dan Shays of our day are not running around with gatling guns.

The National Guard is a standing army, not the militia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, and your opinion is a steadily dwindling minority. By the election of 2020, your type of thinking will involve almost no one.

If original intent is related to the actual conditions of society and the militia then, then common sense tells us that when it is related to our times, that the actual conditions of society and our armed forces and citizenry now prevail. The Founders undoubtedly would approve of the National Guard and reserves.

The Founders would be tickled the Dan Shays of our day are not running around with gatling guns.

The National Guard is a standing army, not the militia.

 

[MikeK]

Oh, it's already happening. A school friend of mine who is a professor at So Cal already announced she was foregoing facebook posting today, in order to ponder a society that was willing to die for the sake of NRA.

These shooting incidents tend to provoke those inclined to melodramatic hysteria and it appears your friend is an example of that.

I posted that if one person in that theater had been packing, the death count would have been much, much lower.

I agree. Someone with a little .38 in pocket or purse and close enough to him to put one in his face or his ear. That would have been the end of it.

 

[MikeK]

You're a little late. On another forum, this morning, the 'nuts were already posting that if everyone there had carry permits the guy wouldn't have been able to do what he did.

The "nuts" are right. The problem is the gun-shy are incapable of understanding that.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Nope, and your opinion is a steadily dwindling minority. By the election of 2020, your type of thinking will involve almost no one.

If original intent is related to the actual conditions of society and the militia then, then common sense tells us that when it is related to our times, that the actual conditions of society and our armed forces and citizenry now prevail. The Founders undoubtedly would approve of the National Guard and reserves.

The Founders would be tickled the Dan Shays of our day are not running around with gatling guns.

The National Guard is a standing army, not the militia.

Sheesh Jake, why don't you go read something. Maybe the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment. It's not as thorough as iy could be, but it's better than the COMPLETE lack of knowledge that you currently possess.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[81]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[82] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[83] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[84]

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[85]

There is a lot more, but I doubt you will read it.

 

[rightwinger]

"Well regulated" doesn't mean the same thing today that it meant when the Document was drafted. And because language does evolve in meaning and usage over time the factor of Original Intent must be considered whenever questions of this nature arise with reference to the Constitution.

The intent of the Framers when drafting the Second Amendment was to ensure that the People would not be barred from owning ("keeping and bearing") firearms. And because the words hunting and recreation do not appear in the Amendment its obvious purpose is to enable the People to resist government oppression -- as in armed rebellion.

Contrary to popular belief the reference to "militia" in the Second Amendment does not mean the National Guard, which is a standing army under government control. The "militia" in the time when the Constitution was drafted was every able-bodied male citizen. So it logically follows that "well-regulated militia" meant the keeping of lists of such male citizens and their locations to be summoned when needed.

Nonsense

Militias were well regulated at the time. In some cases, participation was mandatory for able bodied men. They trained, had a command structure and were required to provide their own weapons.

They did not fear government oppression. They feared invasion, they feared Indians

Bullshit!! Read some of the arguments during the writing of the Constitution. Government oppression was what they feared the MOST.

Turns out they were pretty fucking smart, too.

If they wanted to curb government oppression through force, they would have made more provisions for it

The way they chose to curb government suppression was not by giving the population guns.......but giving them a vote

 

[OODA_Loop]

If they wanted to curb government oppression through force, they would have made more provisions for it

They had just curbed English government oppression by force, come on.

 

[ABikerSailor]

How long before the Tragedy of the Batman Movie shooting will be twisted Politically into another Anti gun Campaign by the Democrats? I'm thinking Monday Morning the pro gun ban people will be in high gear. I think that they will use the weekend to plan their strike which will commence at 9AM Monday morning on all of those usual suspect shows. They will wait until the majority of people who aren't Democrats do what they do best... Go to WORK.

I've got no problem with people owning guns. Matter of fact, I don't even care how many guns a person has.

However....................................

Don't you think that being able to fire 100 rounds before having to reload is a bit over the top?

I thought it was bad last year when Laughtner had 30 round magazines in his 9mm.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Utter nonsense.

The guy came prepared, armored, and drove the crowd into a frenzy wtih a smoke bomb and a shot into the air.

The CCW would have shot each other.

The police responded in 90 seconds.

Nothing would have changed in this case.

You're a little late. On another forum, this morning, the 'nuts were already posting that if everyone there had carry permits the guy wouldn't have been able to do what he did.

The "nuts" are right. The problem is the gun-shy are incapable of understanding that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You, the militias, and the sovereignistas are totally out of touch with reality and the vast majority. You are a breed on extinction mode.

Nope, and your opinion is a steadily dwindling minority. By the election of 2020, your type of thinking will involve almost no one.

The National Guard is a standing army, not the militia.

Sheesh Jake, why don't you go read something. Maybe the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment. It's not as thorough as iy could be, but it's better than the COMPLETE lack of knowledge that you currently possess.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[81]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[82] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[83] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[84]

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[85]

There is a lot more, but I doubt you will read it.

 

[rightwinger]

If they wanted to curb government oppression through force, they would have made more provisions for it

They had just curbed English government oppression by force, come on.

Not by an armed population they didn't. They beat the British with a standing Army and an alliance with France

 

[ABikerSailor]

Utter nonsense.

The guy came prepared, armored, and drove the crowd into a frenzy wtih a smoke bomb and a shot into the air.

The CCW would have shot each other.

The police responded in 90 seconds.

Nothing would have changed in this case.

You're a little late. On another forum, this morning, the 'nuts were already posting that if everyone there had carry permits the guy wouldn't have been able to do what he did.

The "nuts" are right. The problem is the gun-shy are incapable of understanding that.

There is one thing that could have changed this incident. Limiting the amount of ammo you can legally carry in a clip. If the dude had only 15 round clips in his gun (instead of 100), then the crowd would have possibly been able to stop him when he reloaded.

However............he was able to fire at around 60 shot/min, and had 100 rounds.

We should limit the amount of ammo a clip can carry to no more than 15 rounds. I mean, how hard is it to reload a gun with a clip?