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

[earlycuyler]

Gatlin gun??

Read all about it.

Gatling gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or professor Joe can tell you after he does.

 

[Ernie S.]

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 do realize that it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson or an M 2, don't you?

 

[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.

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 do realize that it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson or an M 2, don't you?[/QUOTE]

No he doesn't. He is a wind bag. You need to help him out. Give him time to figger out what class 3 FFL is then he will be back.

 

[Foxfyre]

I still want to know what is 'reasonable' for people to own, and whether anybody other than JoeB thinks the government should regulate how many of something anybody might 'need'. How many cars does a person 'need'? How many coats? How many pair of shoes? How many cans of green beans? How many television sets? How many guns?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

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.

You do realize that it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson or an M 2, don't you?[/QUOTE]

No he doesn't. He is a wind bag. You need to help him out. Give him time to figger out what class 3 FFL is then he will be back.[/QUOTE]

Don't even need a class 3, except to sell autos. There's a shop a mile and a half from here that sells autos and all you need is a background check and a $200 transfer stamp. (well, that and 12 grand for Ma Deuce) The transfer stamp must be signed off on by local law enforcement, but it's not likely I'd be denied.

 

[Ernie S.]

I still want to know what is 'reasonable' for people to own, and whether anybody other than JoeB thinks the government should regulate how many of something anybody might 'need'. How many cars does a person 'need'? How many coats? How many pair of shoes? How many cans of green beans? How many television sets? How many guns?

My wife should be limited to 24 pairs of shoes...

 

[Foxfyre]

I still want to know what is 'reasonable' for people to own, and whether anybody other than JoeB thinks the government should regulate how many of something anybody might 'need'. How many cars does a person 'need'? How many coats? How many pair of shoes? How many cans of green beans? How many television sets? How many guns?

My wife should be limited to 24 pairs of shoes...

But who do you want to have the right/power/legal authority to limit her?

 

[earlycuyler]

My thing is this, once one amendment is reconsidered, then a precedence has been set, and ALL amendments are open to be reconsidered. No matter what side you sit on politically, at some point in time another person may not like what you say, or how you look or what ever. At that point the first amendment may need to be reconsidered, I mean, after all, I am positive that the founding fathers never expected child pornography to be legal as long as its in cartoon form as it was declared here-

Child pornography laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US law discriminates between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.

Ringol5 was right. Perhaps its time to reconsider the 1st Amendment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And I'm sure you can back up that opinion by citing some historical documents right?

The fact is the writers of the Constitution specifically used the phrase "shall not be infringed" when speaking of the right to bear arms.

That does not jive with your opinion.

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.

The kid didn't go nuts he was born a retard.

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

You think I'm not? Tell me what does taking my guns away do to stop "people like that"?

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.

I don't belong to the NRA. Never did never will.

And you have absolutely no right to tell anyone what they do or do not need unless of course you want to be told that very same thing. I can come up with a list longer than my arm of shit you don't need but I don't presume to be so fucking self righteous as to tell you what to do.

 

[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...

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 ?

Oh, you mean the 30 people on TH you thought were me because I had you so paranoid from all the bitchslapping I did of the retards..

Fact was, there were no guns with the capabilities we had today in 1787. The Founders never could have concived that a crazy woman would buy a bushmaster, and her crazier son would use it to mow down preschoolers.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The Founders never could have concived that a crazy woman would buy a bushmaster, and her crazier son would use it to mow down preschoolers.

Two crazies exercising free will.

And an inanimate object.

Yep has to be the inanimate object's fault.

 

[JoeB131]

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

And I'm sure you can back up that opinion by citing some historical documents right?

The fact is the writers of the Constitution specifically used the phrase "shall not be infringed" when speaking of the right to bear arms.

That does not jive with your opinion.

They also said, "Well-regulated Militia"....which does...

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm

While American leaders were contemplating calling a convention to revise the Articles, violent resistance to traditional law enforcement¾most notably Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts¾underscored the sense of crisis that many Americans felt. Farmers led by Captain Daniel Shays marched on local courthouses in western Massachusetts, shutting down the courts and intimidating judges and others. Eventually militia companies from eastern Massachusetts dispersed Shays and his followers.

The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention met with this event fresh in their memories and with the knowledge that the government under the Articles of Confederation would probably be [Page 196] helpless in a similar situation. Thus, when he introduced the Virginia Plan at the Philadelphia Convention, Governor Edmund Randolph "commented on the difficulty of the crisis" facing the nation and spoke of "the necessity of preventing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the American downfall."[2] Randolph "then proceeded to enumerate the defects" in the present government, noting that "the confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; congress not being permitted to prevent a war nor to support it by their own authority" and that "neither militia nor draughts being fit for defence on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money."[3] He pointed out that "the federal government could not check the quarrels between states, nor a rebellion."[4] He expressed his admiration for those who had written the Articles of Confederation, but noted that they had produced that document

In short, the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the kind of 'armed resistance' to government you guys seem to think it protects.

The kid didn't go nuts he was born a retard.

Do you have evidence for that? All the indications are that he did well in school and only became unglued in the last few years.

[

And you have absolutely no right to tell anyone what they do or do not need unless of course you want to be told that very same thing. I can come up with a list longer than my arm of shit you don't need but I don't presume to be so fucking self righteous as to tell you what to do.

And if any of those things were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to kill people, you might have a valid point about why I shouldn't have them.

 

[earlycuyler]

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 ?

Oh, you mean the 30 people on TH you thought were me because I had you so paranoid from all the bitchslapping I did of the retards..

Fact was, there were no guns with the capabilities we had today in 1787. The Founders never could have concived that a crazy woman would buy a bushmaster, and her crazier son would use it to mow down preschoolers.

Joe, If one was interested they could find you there. You were nothing but a chew toy. You would get laughed at while you debated your self. You were shamed out of there. I felt a little sad for you. Fact IS, In those days they feared the bayonet Mr. History major. The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the time. It was an assault weapon. The best a military could have, and it or a version of it was in just about every ones home. Towns and colonies owned cannon, and they were proficient in their use. As a history major a guy would think you would know this. The fact that you are resorting to "guy" and "crazy woman" is only further proof you are talking out your ass. You need to calm down sport.

 

[JoeB131]

The Founders never could have concived that a crazy woman would buy a bushmaster, and her crazier son would use it to mow down preschoolers.

Two crazies exercising free will.

And an inanimate object.

Yep has to be the inanimate object's fault.

The object making the crime possible, yes.

It is the fault of the people who did it, who never should have had such weapons to start with.

You guys talk about how most gun owners are responsible, law-abiding and never cause any trouble, but you never seem to keen on preventing the ones who don't.

Frankly, when I walk through a metal detector and have them x-ray my shoes at the airport, I never intended to hijack the plane or set off a shoe-bomb, but I'm glad they are taking the precautions against the person who might.

 

[Ernie S.]

I still want to know what is 'reasonable' for people to own, and whether anybody other than JoeB thinks the government should regulate how many of something anybody might 'need'. How many cars does a person 'need'? How many coats? How many pair of shoes? How many cans of green beans? How many television sets? How many guns?

My wife should be limited to 24 pairs of shoes...

But who do you want to have the right/power/legal authority to limit her?

Mastercard.

 

[earlycuyler]

The Founders never could have concived that a crazy woman would buy a bushmaster, and her crazier son would use it to mow down preschoolers.

Two crazies exercising free will.

And an inanimate object.

Yep has to be the inanimate object's fault.

The object making the crime possible, yes.

It is the fault of the people who did it, who never should have had such weapons to start with.

You guys talk about how most gun owners are responsible, law-abiding and never cause any trouble, but you never seem to keen on preventing the ones who don't.

Frankly, when I walk through a metal detector and have them x-ray my shoes at the airport, I never intended to hijack the plane or set off a shoe-bomb, but I'm glad they are taking the precautions against the person who might.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Joe, If one was interested they could find you there. You were nothing but a chew toy. You would get laughed at while you debated your self. You were shamed out of there. I felt a little sad for you. Fact IS, In those days they feared the bayonet Mr. History major. The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the time. It was an assault weapon. The best a military could have, and it or a version of it was in just about every ones home. Towns and colonies owned cannon, and they were proficient in their use. As a history major a guy would think you would know this. The fact that you are resorting to "guy" and "crazy woman" is only further proof you are talking out your ass. You need to calm down sport.

Actually, I just got bored with Town Hall. I had several backup accounts and computers I could have used to keep fucking with them, but it just wasn't worth it. Keep in mind, this was a site where they banned you from using the $ because they were too lazy to employ actual mods to keep spammers off the site. And most of the people there make Daveman look sane... which is an accomplishment, really.

Now, on to the point- As i state above, after the British were defeated, the first concern of the continental congress was to get the yahoos with guns under control. Shays Rebellion had a lasting impact, hence the whole conceptof a "Well-regulated" militia as opposed to "Any asshole with a gun just show up and start threatening people".

The fact is, most people don't need that kind of firepower for home defense or hunting, and the notion of mob rule with guns should frighten most sensible people.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You guys talk about how most gun owners are responsible, law-abiding and never cause any trouble, but you never seem to keen on preventing the ones who don't.

Yes I know.

"Youz guys" filing down the teeth of the judicial, penal and mental health systems while encouraging the destruction of the traditional family and fostering lack of accountability and victimization based on your emotional recking had nothing to do with it.

 

[Ernie S.]

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 ?

Oh, you mean the 30 people on TH you thought were me because I had you so paranoid from all the bitchslapping I did of the retards..

Fact was, there were no guns with the capabilities we had today in 1787. The Founders never could have concived that a crazy woman would buy a bushmaster, and her crazier son would use it to mow down preschoolers.

You're probably right there. It would have been difficult if not impossible to conceive of a society in which a young man would even consider killing a room full of children, but you can rest assured that to a man, they would have wanted you to be able to defend against him with equal or superior firepower.

Now, answer THAT, Joe.

 

[Ernie S.]

And I'm sure you can back up that opinion by citing some historical documents right?

The fact is the writers of the Constitution specifically used the phrase "shall not be infringed" when speaking of the right to bear arms.

That does not jive with your opinion.

They also said, "Well-regulated Militia"....which does...

Chicago-Kent Law Review



In short, the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the kind of 'armed resistance' to government you guys seem to think it protects.






Do you have evidence for that? All the indications are that he did well in school and only became unglued in the last few years.

[

And you have absolutely no right to tell anyone what they do or do not need unless of course you want to be told that very same thing. I can come up with a list longer than my arm of shit you don't need but I don't presume to be so fucking self righteous as to tell you what to do.

And if any of those things were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to kill people, you might have a valid point about why I shouldn't have them.

It's apparent that you shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than fat crayons.