Why the 2nd Amendment needs to be reconsidered...

[Ernie S.]

Why not?

The founders never could have imagined a gun that can fire 600 rounds a minute.

Since the Gatling gun was used in the Civil War I am quite sure people were familiar with rapid fire weapons early in our history.

There were actually machine guns around before the Gatling that were used as early as the 1700s.

So I think it's safe to say that people could indeed have imagined a weapon that could shoot hundreds if rounds a minute even in the 1700s.

Ummm, no, not really.

But I know you need to tell yourself that.

I should also point out that private citizens did not own Gatling guns... they were produced strictly for the Army.

Gatlings were much too big to be used by one man. It wasn't until the 1920's that a full auto became widely enough available and portable that the average man (Militia member) might own one.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why not?

The founders never could have imagined a gun that can fire 600 rounds a minute.

You're right, but that doesn't mean they would have restricted the citizens from having the same weapons as the military.

Well, maybe Mormons...

Guy, are you going to keep whining about the Mormons.

I told you it was a stupid idea to nominate one and I turned out to be right. Romney took an election the GOP should have won and lost it. That takes a special kind of stupid.

Also, to the point. The Second Amendment talks about a "Well Regulted Militia"...

It does not say, "Just a bunch of rednecks showing up with whatever..."

Well regulated does not mean flintlocks, idiot.
I'll poke you about your irrational fear of Mormons all I want Joe. You really are quite sad.

 

[JoeB131]

I should also point out that private citizens did not own Gatling guns... they were produced strictly for the Army.[/QUOTE]

Gatlings were much too big to be used by one man. It wasn't until the 1920's that a full auto became widely enough available and portable that the average man (Militia member) might own one.[/QUOTE]

And they immediately passed laws to regulate who could have them, that's what Miller v. US was about.

Of course, the problem wasn't that the "Militia" had Thompson Sub-machine guns, the problem was that Al Capone and his boys had them.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Well regulated does not mean flintlocks, idiot.
I'll poke you about your irrational fear of Mormons all I want Joe. You really are quite sad.

Actually, about half the country had a pretty rational fear of them... that was the point.

More to the point, even the Right Wing is turning on Romney now. He lost because he wasn't a "Real Conservative". Didn't you get the memo?

 

[earlycuyler]

Why not?

The founders never could have imagined a gun that can fire 600 rounds a minute.

Since the Gatling gun was used in the Civil War I am quite sure people were familiar with rapid fire weapons early in our history.

There were actually machine guns around before the Gatling that were used as early as the 1700s.

So I think it's safe to say that people could indeed have imagined a weapon that could shoot hundreds if rounds a minute even in the 1700s.

Ethnographic Arms & Armour - A Multiple Barreled Polish Organ Gun, ca. 1700

Joe is very familiar with polish organs. one of many multiple barreled weapon systems of the day. Probably the most practical were the screw barrel pistol and the Ferguson rifle . Why the latter never took off is anyone's guess. Anyway, none of that's important as Joe still cant answer why with all his city's gun laws. Why is that Joe ? Im more likely to be shot in Chicago then Houston ?

 

[earlycuyler]

I should also point out that private citizens did not own Gatling guns... they were produced strictly for the Army.

Gatlings were much too big to be used by one man. It wasn't until the 1920's that a full auto became widely enough available and portable that the average man (Militia member) might own one.[/QUOTE]

And they immediately passed laws to regulate who could have them, that's what Miller v. US was about.

Of course, the problem wasn't that the "Militia" had Thompson Sub-machine guns, the problem was that Al Capone and his boys had them.[/QUOTE]

You are a dumb ass Joe, this was in 1939 the weapon was patented in 1861, man you are a weakling dont you read that shit ? And full auto, as well as Gatling guns were available to those who could afford them until they were banned.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why not?

The founders never could have imagined a gun that can fire 600 rounds a minute.

Since the Gatling gun was used in the Civil War I am quite sure people were familiar with rapid fire weapons early in our history.

There were actually machine guns around before the Gatling that were used as early as the 1700s.

So I think it's safe to say that people could indeed have imagined a weapon that could shoot hundreds if rounds a minute even in the 1700s.

Ummm, no, not really.

But I know you need to tell yourself that.

I should also point out that private citizens did not own Gatling guns... they were produced strictly for the Army.

So know you're an expert on what people did or did not know in the 1700s?

Your entire premise is based on your assumption that no one in the 1700s could have imagined a weapon that could shoot multiple rounds per minute.

You are wrong. There were indeed people that could imagine just that and did.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe is very familiar with polish organs. one of many multiple barreled weapon systems of the day. Probably the most practical were the screw barrel pistol and the Ferguson rifle . Why the latter never took off is anyone's guess. Anyway, none of that's important as Joe still cant answer why with all his city's gun laws. Why is that Joe ? Im more likely to be shot in Chicago then Houston ?

Yeah, those Polish babes are hot... but I guess you were just trying to go for a homophobic thing there, eh?

Actually, you are probably just as likely to be shot in either city, which is less likely than you learning how to use contractions properly.

Or Capitalization.

Point is, until we get a national gun law, we are going to have a death rate that is unacceptably high...

 

[JoeB131]

[

So know you're an expert on what people did or did not know in the 1700s?

Your entire premise is based on your assumption that no one in the 1700s could have imagined a weapon that could shoot multiple rounds per minute.

You are wrong. There were indeed people that could imagine just that and did.

Actually, yeah, I'm a history major, and no, the Founders did not consider the Second Amendment the way you whacks perceive it.

But here's the thing.

Should we not have modern medicine because the Founders thought Bleeding was acceptable?

Should we ban OSHA and the EEOC because the founders thought slavery was just fine?

No. We've moved beyond them. As far as I'm concerned, what they thought about the issue is sort of irrelevent.

We have to make a law that works for the here and now.

And in the here and now, letting Adam Lanza get his hands on a Bushmaster and slaughter a room full of preschoolers is unacceptable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

So know you're an expert on what people did or did not know in the 1700s?

Your entire premise is based on your assumption that no one in the 1700s could have imagined a weapon that could shoot multiple rounds per minute.

You are wrong. There were indeed people that could imagine just that and did.

Actually, yeah, I'm a history major, and no, the Founders did not consider the Second Amendment the way you whacks perceive it.

But here's the thing.

Should we not have modern medicine because the Founders thought Bleeding was acceptable?

Should we ban OSHA and the EEOC because the founders thought slavery was just fine?

No. We've moved beyond them. As far as I'm concerned, what they thought about the issue is sort of irrelevent.

We have to make a law that works for the here and now.

And in the here and now, letting Adam Lanza get his hands on a Bushmaster and slaughter a room full of preschoolers is unacceptable.

He actually stole the guns that he used from his mother.

He was a psychotic mental retard.

His mother is at fault not every single gun owner in the country.

Tell me oh sage and omniscient history major, diviner of the minds of the past, what would the founders have said about your wanting to infringe upon the rights of everyone because of the acts of one person?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Constitution was intended to strictly limit the federal government so that the people would not need to rise up against it. Nevertheless, the second amendment was intended to provide the people the means of protecting themselves from enemies that attacked them whether inside or outside the USA, and that included their own government if it presumed to take away their rights and freedom.

The Founders did not foresee the terrible weapons of mass destruction the government would develop and have at its disposal and theoretically could turn on its own people if it chose to do so. Such weapons are necessary to keep other nations from deciding to take what we have in this dangerous world. And that does change the dynamics and requires us to place far more faith in our own government than the Founders would have deemed healthy.

But more and more people are beginning to understand that the problem is not the guns. The problem is a culture in which we train children to accept violence as normal from a very early age coupled with a breakdown in traditional values that once modified our society and made it one of the most peaceful in the world.

 

[earlycuyler]

Joe is very familiar with polish organs. one of many multiple barreled weapon systems of the day. Probably the most practical were the screw barrel pistol and the Ferguson rifle . Why the latter never took off is anyone's guess. Anyway, none of that's important as Joe still cant answer why with all his city's gun laws. Why is that Joe ? Im more likely to be shot in Chicago then Houston ?

Yeah, those Polish babes are hot... but I guess you were just trying to go for a homophobic thing there, eh?

Actually, you are probably just as likely to be shot in either city, which is less likely than you learning how to use contractions properly.

Or Capitalization.

Point is, until we get a national gun law, we are going to have a death rate that is unacceptably high...

^See, soon he will say "Guy" This is when he knows he is caught talking out of his ass. Anyway, Joe you are not worthy of proper grammar, And you are a moron. A national gun law would do nothing for hundreds of years considering the fact that millions have been produced in this country since it has been a country they would never get them all, and it would make guns just one more thing bad guys smuggle up from Mexico. Earlier in this bs you call a thread I posted numbers. You have not. This is why you drift the topic all over, and why you lose on this one. Hey, tell us about your time in the Nam Joe. Tell us about War, and all your metals.

 

[BOBO]

...needs to be dismantled &scrapped completely by the elite in g'ment. Our Constitution & Bill of rights was designed only for people that "respected" their Liberties...

Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts

 

[earlycuyler]

[

So know you're an expert on what people did or did not know in the 1700s?

Your entire premise is based on your assumption that no one in the 1700s could have imagined a weapon that could shoot multiple rounds per minute.

You are wrong. There were indeed people that could imagine just that and did.

Actually, yeah, I'm a history major, and no, the Founders did not consider the Second Amendment the way you whacks perceive it.

But here's the thing.

Should we not have modern medicine because the Founders thought Bleeding was acceptable?

Should we ban OSHA and the EEOC because the founders thought slavery was just fine?

No. We've moved beyond them. As far as I'm concerned, what they thought about the issue is sort of irrelevent.

We have to make a law that works for the here and now.

And in the here and now, letting Adam Lanza get his hands on a Bushmaster and slaughter a room full of preschoolers is unacceptable.

In high school. He also says he is a Vietnam vet, and professional writer to.

 

[earlycuyler]

Oh yeah, Joe, If you are a history major how is it that you screwed up on when the Gatling Gun was invented ? We learned that in high school.

 

[JoeB131]

[

He actually stole the guns that he used from his mother.

He was a psychotic mental retard.

His mother is at fault not every single gun owner in the country.

Tell me oh sage and omniscient history major, diviner of the minds of the past, what would the founders have said about your wanting to infringe upon the rights of everyone because of the acts of one person?

They would have probably agreed that some firepower was too powerful for civilians to own.

Yes, Adam Lanza was a psycho, but so was his mother. Turns out, she was a crazy "Prepper" who thought society was going to fall apart and she wanted to be stocked up on guns and food. No wonder the kid went nuts.

And every resposible gun owner should be concerned people like that are out there.

But the problem is, you guy dance to the tune of the Naional Rampage Association, which is run by the gun manufacturers. Nancy was their ideal customer... someone willing to lay down a lot of money for firepower beyond anything she reasonably needed.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh yeah, Joe, If you are a history major how is it that you screwed up on when the Gatling Gun was invented ? We learned that in high school.

Well, no, I didn't... but you keep telling yourself I did...

 

[OODA_Loop]

Turns out, she was a crazy "Prepper" who thought society was going to fall apart and she wanted to be stocked up on guns and food. No wonder the kid went nuts.

And every resposible gun owner should be concerned people like that are out there.

Exactly.

People need to live their lives in manner "Joe" approves.

 

[Foxfyre]

[

He actually stole the guns that he used from his mother.

He was a psychotic mental retard.

His mother is at fault not every single gun owner in the country.

Tell me oh sage and omniscient history major, diviner of the minds of the past, what would the founders have said about your wanting to infringe upon the rights of everyone because of the acts of one person?

They would have probably agreed that some firepower was too powerful for civilians to own.

Yes, Adam Lanza was a psycho, but so was his mother. Turns out, she was a crazy "Prepper" who thought society was going to fall apart and she wanted to be stocked up on guns and food. No wonder the kid went nuts.

And every resposible gun owner should be concerned people like that are out there.

But the problem is, you guy dance to the tune of the Naional Rampage Association, which is run by the gun manufacturers. Nancy was their ideal customer... someone willing to lay down a lot of money for firepower beyond anything she reasonably needed.

What is 'reasonably needed?' Some people collect guns because they love and admire guns, the workmanship, etc. just as some people collect automobiles or other things that they can't possibly ever have a use for. This falls within the Founder's concept of freedom and our unalienable right to accumulate whatever property we wish to have and enjoy whatever we wish to enjoy that does not infringe on the rights of somebody else. If I have 50 guns, what is that to you? How does that in any way infringe on your rights or harm you in any way? I'm not going to go out and shoot anybody - or any living thing for that matter and I know how to handle firearms so that they don't endanger anybody.

(I don't have 50 guns, but if that would make me happy, I appreciate living in a country that would allow me to have them if I wanted them.)

 

[earlycuyler]

Oh yeah, Joe, If you are a history major how is it that you screwed up on when the Gatling Gun was invented ? We learned that in high school.

Well, no, I didn't... but you keep telling yourself I did...

Well um, you did. You screwed up your dates. Its odd how you are a major in every subject you are getting slapped around over. You do lie allot Joe. Maybe everyone would be intrested in some of your greatest hits ?