Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

...

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ...


    ...
    Last edited by SteinbergerHack; 01-04-2019, 07:28 AM.
    Lease this space!

  • #2
    Why did you start another thread on this topic?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

      It's a different topic. Compare the OPs.
      It’s about the same legislation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

        They are not on the same topic. If you care to discuss the topic put forth in the OP above, please feel free to do so.

        Do you have a helpful comment to add, or are you just trying to create some unnecessary forum traffic about nothing?
        Just rather not try to keep up with the same topic on two different threads is all.

        Comment


        • #5
          "This is just about enough to get me to start donating to the NRA. "


          Red Sparrow approves.

          __________________________________________________

          Is This Thing On?

          https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

          Comment


          • #6
            A well regulated militia must be well regulated
            Last edited by moogerfooger; 01-02-2019, 12:15 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Wayne LaPierre and Maria Butina
              __________________________________________________

              Is This Thing On?

              https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

                Which means that they must practice with their firearms regularly, so they they are competent with their use.

                In any case, the prefatory clause does not limit the active clause.

                How would you interpret the 1st amendment, had it been written as:

                "The variety of protestant religions and the use of town crier speech in opposition to the government being necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

                Would this mean that freedom of speech only applies to town criers, and that freedom of religion only applies to protestants?
                Except the First wasn’t written like that.

                The First was written without qualifiers or explainers.

                The Second was written with them.

                Maybe there’s a reason for that?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Pistols are not mentioned in the other thread - there's enough difference between the two that I think they can both remain open.
                  **********

                  "Look at it this way: think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are stupider than that."
                  - George Carlin

                  "It shouldn't be expected that people are necessarily doing what they appear to be doing on records."
                  - Sir George Martin, All You Need Is Ears

                  "The music business will be revitalized by musicians, not the labels or Live Nation. When the musicians decide to put music first, instead of money, the public will flock to the fruits and the scene will be healthy again."
                  - Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

                    It's not a qualifier - the grammar is quite clear that it is not a dependent clause. This has been repeatedly stated by multiple federal courts and SCOTUS, as well as in contemporary writings by the framers.
                    The First was written without context, qualifier, or explainer.

                    The Second was not.

                    Why do you suppose that is?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by slodge View Post

                      The First was written without context, qualifier, or explainer.

                      The Second was not.

                      Why do you suppose that is?

                      You might want to research two things:

                      What Madison and the other Founders had to say contemporaneously about the Second Amendment and the right of The People to keep and bear arms (The Federalist Papers is a good place to start...), and why the amendment was written... and the debates the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had that led to the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.


                      "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

                      - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46


                      It was always intended as an acknowledgement of an individual right by the Founding Fathers, right from the very beginning. Furthermore, that view has been further confirmed by multiple federal court decisions, as well as by the SCOTUS.
                      **********

                      "Look at it this way: think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are stupider than that."
                      - George Carlin

                      "It shouldn't be expected that people are necessarily doing what they appear to be doing on records."
                      - Sir George Martin, All You Need Is Ears

                      "The music business will be revitalized by musicians, not the labels or Live Nation. When the musicians decide to put music first, instead of money, the public will flock to the fruits and the scene will be healthy again."
                      - Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Simple solution. Keep the guns legal and make gun owners illegal

                        Comment


                        • Jasaoke
                          Jasaoke commented
                          Editing a comment
                          Interesting notion. Having sex is legal; exchanging money and having sex is not. (in most places)

                      • #13
                        Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post


                        You might want to research two things:

                        What Madison and the other Founders had to say contemporaneously about the Second Amendment and the right of The People to keep and bear arms (The Federalist Papers is a good place to start...), and why the amendment was written... and the debates the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had that led to the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.


                        "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

                        - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46


                        It was always intended as an acknowledgement of an individual right by the Founding Fathers, right from the very beginning. Furthermore, that view has been further confirmed by multiple federal court decisions, as well as by the SCOTUS.
                        First of all, let me say that IMHO the Second Amendment, AT THE VERY LEAST, implies the individual right of gun ownership.

                        I would argue, however, that none of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute, without condition, or immune to change.

                        And if i I seem to come down consistently against the arguments of the Second Amendment absolutists, it’s because I find those arguments vapid.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by moogerfooger View Post
                          A well regulated militia must be well regulated
                          A household is not a militia.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post
                            https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elect...ltext_1531.pdf



                            Next, they attempt to massively expand the misuse of the term "assault rifle"


                            In short, every .22 plinker that kids use to learn to safely handle firearms just got labeled an "assault rifle".
                            Link? I read the PDF and nowhere did they define a .22 an "assault rifle".
                            Last edited by harrycox1; 01-02-2019, 06:42 PM.
                            Government
                            Of
                            Putin
                            Originally posted by nedezero1;
                            Good. More lib fake news correspondents need to be assaulted when they get too pushy.
                            http://www.harmonycentral.com/forum/...nches-reporter

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X