Now is not the time to talk about gun laws...

There's no constitutional right to gun ownership... no matter what the NRA tells you.

The Second Amendment is about militias, not guns.

If that were the case it would state that it is the right of states to keep and bear arms, not THE PEOPLE.

But keep igonoring that second part of the amendment....

you keep ignoring the concept of "Well Regulated".

Lanza walking into a preschool with a bunch of weapons is not "Well-regulated."

its the milita that has to be well regulated, which means having regulations, which at the time meant "organized."

Its still THE PEOPLE whos right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.
 
I agree with you about fully automatic weapons and the like, but I still think that those as pathologically damaged as yourself should be "poster children" for gun control. With any insight you'd have a powerful self-fulfilling argument as to why guns should not be available so easily to the general public.

Obviously, as the recent atrocity showed, there are others like you, and some are even more emotionally and mentally unstable.

Yawn...

Yup, thinking it's unreasonable that 1% should control half the wealth is just as depraved as killing kids.

This is the mentality of the right wing and why it loses elections... It's priorities are so fucked up they can't see straight.

So what happened to you when the Iron Curtain was up? Someone in the Party bitch-slap you around?
 
If that were the case it would state that it is the right of states to keep and bear arms, not THE PEOPLE.

But keep igonoring that second part of the amendment....

you keep ignoring the concept of "Well Regulated".

Lanza walking into a preschool with a bunch of weapons is not "Well-regulated."

its the milita that has to be well regulated, which means having regulations, which at the time meant "organized."

Its still THE PEOPLE whos right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

No, well regulated meant exactly that- REGULATED.

As in, "we need to have a bunch of rules so we aren't an angry mob with guns, because that would sort of retarded."

Well regulated militia means we can dictate what kind of guns are and are not appropriate and who it is appropriate to give them to.

It does not mean, "Crazy person can buy automatic weapons!"
 
they dont care about the constitution.

If they did they would not be trying to kill the post office
 
you keep ignoring the concept of "Well Regulated".

Lanza walking into a preschool with a bunch of weapons is not "Well-regulated."

its the milita that has to be well regulated, which means having regulations, which at the time meant "organized."

Its still THE PEOPLE whos right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

No, well regulated meant exactly that- REGULATED.

As in, "we need to have a bunch of rules so we aren't an angry mob with guns, because that would sort of retarded."

Well regulated militia means we can dictate what kind of guns are and are not appropriate and who it is appropriate to give them to.

It does not mean, "Crazy person can buy automatic weapons!"

Look at who is suddenly a late 18th century vocabulary expert.

You still ignore the 2nd clause of the amendment, leaving the right with THE PEOPLE.
 
I agree with you about fully automatic weapons and the like, but I still think that those as pathologically damaged as yourself should be "poster children" for gun control. With any insight you'd have a powerful self-fulfilling argument as to why guns should not be available so easily to the general public.

Obviously, as the recent atrocity showed, there are others like you, and some are even more emotionally and mentally unstable.

Yawn...

Yup, thinking it's unreasonable that 1% should control half the wealth is just as depraved as killing kids.

This is the mentality of the right wing and why it loses elections... It's priorities are so fucked up they can't see straight.

So what happened to you when the Iron Curtain was up? Someone in the Party bitch-slap you around?
I realize you're a bit of a bumpkin and, let's face it, not the sharpest tack in the box, but why would you think I would behind your beloved Iron Curtain when it fell? I was in San Diego as a matter of fact.

You are not the lone loony on these threads, but your self-image as a blameless victim is more pathological than most the others. Given that and the apparent fury at others for your failures could indeed be a dangerous state. I hope spewing your rage on the internet will suffice instead, and you are probably too much of a coward to do more anyway, but then one never knows.

Anyway, I completely agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminal and unbalanced elements. You provide an excellent example of the latter. That was my point.
 
its the milita that has to be well regulated, which means having regulations, which at the time meant "organized."

Its still THE PEOPLE whos right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

No, well regulated meant exactly that- REGULATED.

As in, "we need to have a bunch of rules so we aren't an angry mob with guns, because that would sort of retarded."

Well regulated militia means we can dictate what kind of guns are and are not appropriate and who it is appropriate to give them to.

It does not mean, "Crazy person can buy automatic weapons!"

Look at who is suddenly a late 18th century vocabulary expert.

You still ignore the 2nd clause of the amendment, leaving the right with THE PEOPLE.

Except at the time, gun ownership was rare because they were pretty difficult to make.

The founders never saw a situation were we'd have 240 million guns in private hands... nor would they have ever thought that was a good idea.
 
I realize you're a bit of a bumpkin and, let's face it, not the sharpest tack in the box, but why would you think I would behind your beloved Iron Curtain when it fell? I was in San Diego as a matter of fact.

Anyway, I completely agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminal and unbalanced elements. You provide an excellent example of the latter. That was my point.

Ignoring most of your whiny squeeling because, honestly, you've taken worship of greed to a pathological level... I'm almost sad for you worshipping something you are never going to have. You're like the 15 year old who masturbates to the picture of the supermodel.

I realize she's mostly airbrushed and has the IQ of a houseplant.
 
I realize you're a bit of a bumpkin and, let's face it, not the sharpest tack in the box, but why would you think I would behind your beloved Iron Curtain when it fell? I was in San Diego as a matter of fact.

Anyway, I completely agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminal and unbalanced elements. You provide an excellent example of the latter. That was my point.

Ignoring most of your whiny squeeling because, honestly, you've taken worship of greed to a pathological level... I'm almost sad for you worshipping something you are never going to have. You're like the 15 year old who masturbates to the picture of the supermodel.

I realize she's mostly airbrushed and has the IQ of a houseplant.
Whinny squeeling?! Seriously? Joe, you are easily the whiniest poster on this site. Than in itself while certainly tiresome is not dangerous. It is the next step where you imagine you've grown a pair and whining on the internet is just not enough anymore. With a gun you just might seek to avenge your failures. I just hope you never grow a pair but if you do, you do not take it out on children.
 
Whinny squeeling?! Seriously? Joe, you are easily the whiniest poster on this site. Than in itself while certainly tiresome is not dangerous. It is the next step where you imagine you've grown a pair and whining on the internet is just not enough anymore. With a gun you just might seek to avenge your failures. I just hope you never grow a pair but if you do, you do not take it out on children.

Why do you care so much about my life and the details of it. Frankly, it seems you are a bit obsessed.

Incidently, I've served in the military, which is more than you've ever done.
 
No, well regulated meant exactly that- REGULATED.

As in, "we need to have a bunch of rules so we aren't an angry mob with guns, because that would sort of retarded."

Well regulated militia means we can dictate what kind of guns are and are not appropriate and who it is appropriate to give them to.

It does not mean, "Crazy person can buy automatic weapons!"

Look at who is suddenly a late 18th century vocabulary expert.

You still ignore the 2nd clause of the amendment, leaving the right with THE PEOPLE.

Except at the time, gun ownership was rare because they were pretty difficult to make.

The founders never saw a situation were we'd have 240 million guns in private hands... nor would they have ever thought that was a good idea.

Rare? Really? The whole concept of the milita was based on every citizen being able to provide thier own weapon. Even localities that were able to afford an arsenal with military grade weapons asked the people to bring thier own with them as backup.

Any landholder had a firearm, usually several, for both home defense and hunting, as well as playing thier role in the milita.

Firearms are a tool, a tool almost everyone owned back during the late 1700's..

Again, rare? Really?
 
Whinny squeeling?! Seriously? Joe, you are easily the whiniest poster on this site. Than in itself while certainly tiresome is not dangerous. It is the next step where you imagine you've grown a pair and whining on the internet is just not enough anymore. With a gun you just might seek to avenge your failures. I just hope you never grow a pair but if you do, you do not take it out on children.

Why do you care so much about my life and the details of it. Frankly, it seems you are a bit obsessed.

Incidently, I've served in the military, which is more than you've ever done.
I don't give a rat's ass about your failures, however I do care about the dangers of weapons in the hands of unbalanced people. That's the whole point.
 
Rare? Really? The whole concept of the milita was based on every citizen being able to provide thier own weapon. Even localities that were able to afford an arsenal with military grade weapons asked the people to bring thier own with them as backup.

Any landholder had a firearm, usually several, for both home defense and hunting, as well as playing thier role in the milita.

Firearms are a tool, a tool almost everyone owned back during the late 1700's..

Again, rare? Really?

the entire "Militia" in the revolutionary war was at its height, 44,000 men. Out of a population of some 6 million at that time. So that's one gun for every 100 people. Or less.

And most of those guns were paid for by the Continental Congress. That's why France's intervention was a big thing.

Guns were rare in the colonies, because in pre-industrial days, they were damned difficult to make.

American Made Muskets of the American Revolution (by George Neumann)
 
Whinny squeeling?! Seriously? Joe, you are easily the whiniest poster on this site. Than in itself while certainly tiresome is not dangerous. It is the next step where you imagine you've grown a pair and whining on the internet is just not enough anymore. With a gun you just might seek to avenge your failures. I just hope you never grow a pair but if you do, you do not take it out on children.

Why do you care so much about my life and the details of it. Frankly, it seems you are a bit obsessed.

Incidently, I've served in the military, which is more than you've ever done.
I don't give a rat's ass about your failures, however I do care about the dangers of weapons in the hands of unbalanced people. That's the whole point.

What you care about is that I'm screaming the Emperor has no clothes.

Because that's the reality of your life. You totally buy into the bullshit, and frankly, the emperor is "Teabagging" you.
 
Rare? Really? The whole concept of the milita was based on every citizen being able to provide thier own weapon. Even localities that were able to afford an arsenal with military grade weapons asked the people to bring thier own with them as backup.

Any landholder had a firearm, usually several, for both home defense and hunting, as well as playing thier role in the milita.

Firearms are a tool, a tool almost everyone owned back during the late 1700's..

Again, rare? Really?

the entire "Militia" in the revolutionary war was at its height, 44,000 men. Out of a population of some 6 million at that time. So that's one gun for every 100 people. Or less.

And most of those guns were paid for by the Continental Congress. That's why France's intervention was a big thing.

Guns were rare in the colonies, because in pre-industrial days, they were damned difficult to make.

American Made Muskets of the American Revolution (by George Neumann)

Every backwoods person had a squirrel gun or a hunting rifle. Hunting was a means of providing food on the table. Most owned rifles, which were poor service weapons for the military tactics at the time due to fouling based loading issues.

Even if 44,000 people only were in militas, it is no indication of gun ownership overall, as the entire concept of banning someone from having a firearm was seen as silly.
 
[

Every backwoods person had a squirrel gun or a hunting rifle. Hunting was a means of providing food on the table. Most owned rifles, which were poor service weapons for the military tactics at the time due to fouling based loading issues.

Even if 44,000 people only were in militas, it is no indication of gun ownership overall, as the entire concept of banning someone from having a firearm was seen as silly.

Quite the contrary, we have had gun control measures throughout our history...

For instance, in many western towns, people were required to surrender their firearms before they were allowed to enter the town...

Guns were actually pretty rare... certainly not as deadly or as prolific as they were today.

But let's go ahead and say that the founders really did share the NRA's view on gun ownership.

They also thought bleeding was a valid medical treatment and one person owning another was just dandy.

Because they didn't know any better.
 
[

Every backwoods person had a squirrel gun or a hunting rifle. Hunting was a means of providing food on the table. Most owned rifles, which were poor service weapons for the military tactics at the time due to fouling based loading issues.

Even if 44,000 people only were in militas, it is no indication of gun ownership overall, as the entire concept of banning someone from having a firearm was seen as silly.

Quite the contrary, we have had gun control measures throughout our history...

For instance, in many western towns, people were required to surrender their firearms before they were allowed to enter the town...

Guns were actually pretty rare... certainly not as deadly or as prolific as they were today.

But let's go ahead and say that the founders really did share the NRA's view on gun ownership.

They also thought bleeding was a valid medical treatment and one person owning another was just dandy.

Because they didn't know any better.

Yes, there were gun bans in western towns, but the other side of the coin was that the law enforcement in the town then guarnateed your safety. Considering most towns were one street/one saloon towns this was rather easy with 4-5 law enforcement personnel.

So the equivalent today would be checking into NYC and the NYPD then guarantees your safety. Of course we know this is impossible, but back in the era of 50-100 person towns, it was not.

The modern equivalent is secured locations, such as courts, airports, and the like. There once you pass security the officers in the area are providing for your security.

Gun free zones such as the school in conneticuit only go for the first item, banning the weapons, they neglect the second part, providing a secure guarantee and that is where they fail.
 
If that were the case it would state that it is the right of states to keep and bear arms, not THE PEOPLE.

But keep igonoring that second part of the amendment....

you keep ignoring the concept of "Well Regulated".

Lanza walking into a preschool with a bunch of weapons is not "Well-regulated."

back when the 2nd Amendment was written, "well-regulated" meant "maintaining competency by means of regular target practice"...

and if you bothered to read what the framers intended (and they left behind a plethora of writings on the subject), you'd know that the 2nd Amendment was indeed about an individual's ability to keep guns...

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, the most firepower an individual could garner was a Flintlock Musket.

According to the Continental army training manual, there were 13 steps to firing a musket. In short, a soldier had to get a cartridge, tear it open with his teeth, put a little bit of powder in the firing mechanism, put the rest of the powder and a gun ball down the barrel, ram the ball and powder home, cock the musket and fire.

The musket was not an accurate weapon, so even after all that work, the soldier didn’t have the greatest chance of shooting his intended target. ref.
 
you keep ignoring the concept of "Well Regulated".

Lanza walking into a preschool with a bunch of weapons is not "Well-regulated."

back when the 2nd Amendment was written, "well-regulated" meant "maintaining competency by means of regular target practice"...

and if you bothered to read what the framers intended (and they left behind a plethora of writings on the subject), you'd know that the 2nd Amendment was indeed about an individual's ability to keep guns...

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, the most firepower an individual could garner was a Flintlock Musket.

According to the Continental army training manual, there were 13 steps to firing a musket. In short, a soldier had to get a cartridge, tear it open with his teeth, put a little bit of powder in the firing mechanism, put the rest of the powder and a gun ball down the barrel, ram the ball and powder home, cock the musket and fire.

The musket was not an accurate weapon, so even after all that work, the soldier didn’t have the greatest chance of shooting his intended target. ref.

The procedure you describe is for use in military formations. The purpose is to create barrage fire, as well as to make sure the line fires at the same time so any stray sparks does not set of a soliders musket when he is trying to load it.

The most common weapon was a hunting rifle, which while more difficult to load was far more accurate than the standard smooth bore musket.
 

Forum List

Back
Top