Ferfucksake...

[pbmus]

[pansypoo53219]

1. yes. the 2nd amendment should only cover muskets.

[gtar100]

23. Woooshhhh!

What was that object that just went flying by overhead. I think it was a point!

[Blue_true]

36. Actually, that is all it covers.

The socalled "strict constructionists" like Scalia was or Gorsuch claims to be are bullshitters when it comes to guns and many other modern issues.

[pbmus]

57. Apparently thinking like you are in the 1700s is fashionable and really intelligent

it is definitely the latest fad...

[Blue_true]

58. The issue is we have laws for all types of stuff that came about after the original articles.

Even the first version of the Constitution was amended from the original sent out for ratification. Strict constructionists ignore the fact that the framers of the Constitution made it amendable for a reason, they knew and accepted that change happens and that they had not seen everything, especially things in the future.

[KingCharlemagne]

68. They do view a certain cohort of our citizenry as only 3/5 of a person, however. So

there's that.

[LesterKasai]

42. It's a slippery slope to say the 2A only covers muskets, because...

...following that logic, the 1A shouldn't cover Penthouse magazine, or anything on the Internet for that matter given that they did not exist way back then.

(and I am an ardent supporter of strict gun control measures)

[KingCharlemagne]

69. Actually, printed pornography was the first profitable industry

created by movable type and the printing press. Just like VCRs and, most recently, the internet.

[Jim Beard]

94. Or only be interrupted

to refer to speech against our government.

[calimary]

47. And don't forget the part about the "well-regulated militia."

[HAB911]

66. You are not supposed to mention that

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172201940

[jmg257]

84. PLEASE mention it - that is a reason things like assault weapon bans and mag capacity laws should be

unconstitutional.

If the people are supposed to be part of the militia, then they need effective weapons. The whole idea of the militias, the clauses in the constitution, and the Militia Acts that followed was to provide for an effective alternative to standing armies. They have/had very vital roles to fill in keeping the guarantees made in the constitution.
In order for those goals, the people were required to provide themselves with some standard of uniform military arms, and various accoutrements.

Sure the well-regulated militias have been redefined since, but generally the people are still the militia (though codified as "unorganized&quot and the 2nd amendment securing their right is still the law of the land.

[Tall Poppy]

2. Lol - Aussie comedian Jim Jefferies

"It made a helluva lot of sense when it was just muskets"

[padah513]

7. HA!

That was classic!

[canetoad]

12. Hahaha

"You know what's good about the musket? It gives you a lot of time to calm down."

[Skittles]

3. Gun humpers are not known for their intellect

[Alea]

6. After 8 years in military intelligence and humping my gun through 4 deployments

I'm currently at Auburn University finishing my Engineering degree. I got an A in Physics so my professor would probably disagree with you. Probably going to the range tomorrow if it doesn't rain to hard.

Sorry to bust your false narrative. I also vote Democrat.

[retrowire]

8. I don't think being a gun enthusiast

Excellent Marksman, or even firearm engineer makes one a gun humper.

A gun humper is, to me, someone who places guns above other more important priorities.

[XRubicon]

22. Finishing engineering with physics?

That is a first or second year class for an engineer.

[Alea]

30. Finishing, as in will finish at AU

I took courses in the military as time and schedule permitted, which was not a lot as you might imagine. Will finish at Auburn. I have a long way to go.

[XRubicon]

45. Good luck to you

[hunter]

32. I don't respect that.

The guns, I'm saying, I'm talking about the guns.

Most of the bad ass military folk I know put them away when it's over. If they got'em, they don't advertise it; I've never heard a single one of them drop a casual "I'm going to the range tomorrow."

My own university physics professor was the nicest guy in the world, his office was always open, he was a fantastic teacher and his lectures were often entertaining too, but he was renowned for writing the hardest exams in the university. I got an "A" on some, but mostly I got Bs.

[Alea]

34. Good for you

[Skittles]

33. you "vote Democrat"

alrighty then

you seem to have no clue what makes one a "gun humper", despite your advanced academics

by the way, I was trained to shoot in the military too - why would you think that would make me more likely to vote repuke?

[Blue_true]

37. You are also likely a responsible gun owner and are willing to register your guns.

Or at least submit to a background check when you buy one. I don't own a gun and never will own one. I think that Democrats that think the issue is only not having guns are missing the point and giving republicans talking points. The issues are keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people and holding gun owners responsible for sensibly securing their guns to prevent thelft.

Unlike you so far, I am a trained engineer with lots of experience. I know that a person can walk into a grocery store and buy innocent items that will allow them to kill or maim a city block of people and animals and plants, without firing a single bullet. If one look at killings and shootings over the last month, all the killers had given off signs that they were set to kill. We need to get better at detecting those signs before people go on killing sprees, because if our only defense is eliminating guns, we have lost.

[MyOwnPeace]

44. Blue............

Marvelous last paragraph - "We need to get better" - yes, and not have people hide behind atrocious laws like the "stand your ground" s**t that gets put into place.
I'm forever looking for a serious, legitimate way to help those parents (and our country!) of the "Sandy Hook" massacre and find a way to make sane, legal ways to make us all safer.

[Blue_true]

48. We can start with better mental health care along with holding gun owners responsible for securing

their guns. Stand your ground laws are built around the fantasy that everyone that use a gun are protecting life. Some people shoot other people simply because of their race or religion then get away with it under stand your ground laws.

Sandy Hook is a tough and sad example. Once a homicidal nut is on school grounds with high powered weapons, tragedy follows. The mom of the killer thought exposing him to deadly weapons would help heal his mental issues. She likely let him know where the gun safe keys were. She got a bullet through the head before the killer went to Sandy Hook and killed 26 innocent human beings. There were two tragedies, a gun loving mom was left to deal with a person that should have been a publicly funded mental institution and the second and most disheartening is what the killer did at at Sandy Hook.

We are not going to stop killers, there are so many ways to kill. But guns present by far the easiest way to kill, so we should work on sane ways of keeping them out of the hands of potential killers and mentally unstable people.

[MyOwnPeace]

50. and that's what hurts......

"We are not going to stop killers, there are so many ways to kill. But guns present by far the easiest way to kill, so we should work on sane ways of keeping them out of the hands of potential killers and mentally unstable people."

And yet we have "patriots" that want to claim the 2nd amendment allows ALL to have the right to do harm to all!

[Alea]

46. Very well said, and

my guns, the few I own, were purchased with background checks. I also purchased a safe for them, which for now is kept at my parents house. I also have a handgun safe in my apartment that my father bolted to the floor for me to make it harder to steal.

I also agree there's a lot that needs to be done to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to identify the mass killers in our society. Whether they use a gun or not.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

77. Pardon me but I wanted to ask...

...about registration. I disagree with any mandatory registration laws and don't see any benefit. I do see lots of chances for abuse of that information by LEOs and government. What does registration buy?

I'm a fan of law enforcement offering a free BGC to anyone who wants a private buyer to be checked before a sale. I also favor police offering a voluntary means of registration for anyone interested. I don't like open carry but would stop short of making it a crime. I favor allowing property owners and venue operators establishing restrictions on firearms carry as they determine reasonable.

[Systems Engineer with close to 40 years experience majored in physics with an electronics concentration.]

[Blue_true]

78. Registration has the potential to be abused by government.

If I had to chose, I would chose a sound background check regimine and free training to new gun owners on how to properly secure their guns. I am not a must have everything type of political thinker, that leads to gridlock and lack of progress, IMO. I don't own a gun and don't want to own one, but I accept the reality that lots of law abiding decent people want guns for recreation and what they feel is protection.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. {{this}}

The gridlock and lack of progress is only serving those using the topic as a political tool.
Those folks need to be voted out.

What a refreshing outlook!

[kag]

64. I assume you meant...

"...if it doesn't rain too hard."

Not to question your intelligence, or anything.

[The Wielding Truth]

65. You voted as a Democrat or for the Democratic Party.

Here are my feelings about firearms. If you love guns, I hope you also respect them for their main purpose and that is to kill or wound.To hunt or protect. Shooting ranges are to prepare you for the accuracy of the discharge. If you find it light and fun then you should rethink the reason you have maintained your weapon after your experiences with deployment.

Take it seriously and I will respect your ownership. I understand your mental abilities.

I also realize that you may, like many others, just enjoy the ability to blow things up or show your prowess as a marksman. Enjoying the practice is admirable but enjoying the gun is like having a tiger for a pet.

Welcome to DU. You have proved you are a hard worker and engineering is a great profession. You should do well.

[USALiberal]

72. Cool story! nt

[flibbitygiblets]

4. But guns make me feel better about my impotence and tiny penis!

And surely that's worth thousands killed every year, right?

[Duppers]

73. LOL.

All the more reason I want a bazooka.



(<Snort> I'm female)

[jmg257]

5. Ha ha - and by "well regulated militia", they didn't mean the citizens under arms,

ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens, little, if at all, inferior to any standing army in discipline and the use of arms.



Huh - well maybe they did. Guess those arms, whatever they are, better be appropriate for that extremely vital purpose.

[yallerdawg]

10. This isn't the late 1700's anymore.

We had a successful 'revolution' and now we have "standing armies" - WE HAVE - that serve us, 'well regulated' and 'necessary for the security of our free State.'

You know what American 'revolutionaries' are called now? Hate groups and terrorists! Traitors!

[jmg257]

13. Really? Then why a goofy meme depicting George Washington? I agree - very silly.

Silly to try to change the meaning of what was meant by "arms" and exactly whom was intended to provide them and wield them.
It is all quite obvious just by doing a bit o' research.

Just as obvious things have changed, and yet - the constitution has not.

[yallerdawg]

15. Do you know what "amendments" are?

We have most definitely changed the Constitution MANY TIMES!

Including the "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment!

[jmg257]

16. Of course - the 2nd was one of the 1st, which means it "changes" the body of the document.

So tell me - what amendment followed that changed the intent and/or interpretation of the 2nd??

[yallerdawg]

18. Your words.

"The constitution has not."

Just reminding you - it has in most significant ways, and it will change in the future.

[jmg257]

21. Ah gotcha. Agreed, thanks for pointing that out to help keep things clear.

As for the future, it very well may!

[yallerdawg]

24. What I'm saying is...

that document from the 1700's was particular to a place and time.

We keep running into it's shortcomings, like the Electoral College and other undemocratic glitches.

Of course, the 3rd Amendment seems to be holding up well.

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law."

[jmg257]

25. Yes. Clearly things have changed, including the people redefining what was meant by

"well regulated militia". No longer to include the citizenry as a whole, but to be more of the select militia as envisioned by Hamilton, AKA the National Guard. And our acceptance of HUGE standing armies, despite all the warnings of the FF.

Still, the militia/people do get a bone, they are generally identified as 'the unorganized militia'.

And my point, like the 3rd, the 2nd and its restriction on the govt is still law of the land.

[pbmus]

51. "We keep running into its shortcomings"

The supreme court should be tasked with evaluating and recommending changes, when necessary, to these undemocratic and sometimes dangerous glitches....IMHO



Thank you to all opinions on this post.

[elmac]

9. all those millions of guns bought cause "bama gona take my gun"

will now flood the market as used guns, good time to short the gun makers.

[yallerdawg]

26. Motley Fool tip -"Don't short!"

There was a lot of speculation on Wall Street that the gunmakers would be the victim of the so-called "Trump Slump" -- the belief that a reputedly pro-gun president and Congress would obviate the need for further gun sales.



Fear of new gun-control laws doesn't create demand for guns; it merely affects the timing of the purchase. Thinking your right to buy an AR-15 might be limited in the next few months, you'll buy one now instead of waiting. Removing that concern doesn't eliminate the demand for the new firearm; it just takes it off the "must buy now" list. The demand remains regardless, a point analysts seemed to overlook in declaring doom for the firearms industry.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/13/the-gun-industry-just-had-its-best-may-ever.aspx

[X_Digger]

11. "We were talking about a 3 page per minute press, not 100mbs of IP traffic!"

Last edited Sat Jun 17, 2017, 07:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Free clue: rights don't depend on technology-- at least not for some of us.

original text due to nit-picking: "principles don't depend on technology".

[yallerdawg]

14. What makes owning a big boy toy...

a "principle?"

surely you don't think "guns" are anymore than a toy unless you're in law enforcement, military or crime?

[X_Digger]

17. Who said 'toy'? Oh that's you. Feel free to address what I actually said, not what you wish I did.

Last edited Sat Jun 17, 2017, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

A right, like the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to free speech, or the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure- don't depend on a particular technology.

Free speech extends to the internet, unreasonable search and seizure extends to digital assets, and yes, dear, the right to keep an bear arms extends to modern arms.

I'm awaiting anxiously how you'll try to contort yourself to say, "yes, but it's different!"-- this time.

[MGKrebs]

19. That is blatantly false

You can't own nukes. You have to have permits for a lot of weapons. You can't yell 'fire' in a theater.
Reasonable restrictions do exist.

[X_Digger]

27. No right is absolute, no. Tell me who said they are. It wasn't me, so you're arguing with whom? n/t

Feel free

[MGKrebs]

49. You said a right to bear arms didn't depend on technology.

I pointed out what I think is an exception to that statemernt.

[LesterKasai]

52. I think you pointed out a limitation to the statement, not an exception.

[X_Digger]

61. No, that's not an exception, because nukes have never been part of 'bearable arms'.

Bearable arms have been generally legally understood to be weapons with a directed, limited effect.

If I come up with a star-trek style phaser, it would be a bearable arm.

If I come up with a portable rail gun that uses magnetic fields to propel a projectile- that would be a bearable arm.

Just like if I come up with a way to transmit my writings via cockroaches, it would still be speech.

There is no magic group that says, "Oh this one, flitterbook, that's speech, but telegraph-via-farts isn't".

[yallerdawg]

20. Every 'right' you identify has limits.

When you encounter these limits - say, concealed carry at a courthouse or airport - do you then take a principled stand?

Or do you leave your toys at home?

[X_Digger]

28. And again, who said all rights are absolute? You sure do like arguing with things I didn't say.

Keep your fingers out of my mouth- my words come out just fine, I don't need you to try to pull them out.

Besides, I don't know where your fingers have been.

[yallerdawg]

29. It's good to know that 'principles' can be hedged.

As a Democrat, I am very familiar with 'moral relativism.' Every election.

[X_Digger]

38. Is it you who has this definition of rights being absolute? What a silly concept.

Funny how you keep trying to address something you want me to have said, rather than what I'm actually saying.

Perhaps it's that you know I'm right, and rather than admit it, you try to obfuscate, dodge, and elide..

Why is that, I wonder?

Free clue: saying that rights don't depend on technology != rights are absolute.

[yallerdawg]

40. What you said to start:

"Principles don't depend on technology."

Principle - a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

I do believe you said that. Nothing I'm putting in your mouth.

Glad to see it isn't REALLY principles, just acknowledgement that "rights" as written in this old document may be limited (infringed).

[X_Digger]

41. Oh joy, you can pick a nit! How novel.

Do you have anything substantive to address my last post, or are you too busy looking for spelling and grammar errors?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

76. I have open carried at an airport and on to an aircraft

Of course the aircraft owner was friend. I guess that's another 'loophole'.

[oneshooter]

88. I have carried a full auto weapon with a full load of ammo (200rds) onto

A commercial aircraft, The stewardess was very helpful in getting both into the overhead storage bins. Seem like they had done it before.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. Chartered flight, you owned the aircraft or red passport?

[oneshooter]

91. Military charter.

Better ride than a C-130. Saigon was considered a hot landing base, had full combat gear, except explosives, ready.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

92. Thanks again for your service

[oneshooter]

93. When I was working overseas my Employer required that we be armed 24-7.

Even when he came into the States or other countries for business.

[pbmus]

56. So your reasoning is from the 1700's?

prin·ci·ple
[ˈprinsəpəl]

NOUN
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning:
"the basic principles of Christianity"
synonyms: truth · proposition · concept · idea · theory · assumption · fundamental · [more]
(principles)
a rule or belief governing one's personal behavior:
"struggling to be true to their own principles" · [more]
synonyms: morals · morality · (code of) ethics · beliefs · ideals · standards · [more]
morally correct behavior and attitudes:
"a man of principle"
synonyms: morals · morality · (code of) ethics · beliefs · ideals · standards · [more]

[X_Digger]

60. We don't apply rights based on technology, but on foundational principles.

Speech is speech, regardless of whether it's spoken aloud, printed on paper, or posted to twitter.
Privacy of one's person and effects applies to both your wallet and your e-wallet.

[pbmus]

62. The pope now believes in UFO's... and somehow I feel

your position has changed and morphed into rights, three of which are the most important, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

we most certainly DO apply rights based on many many factors to include technology and all its various intricacies...

[ffr]

31. That tickled the ol' funny bone.

[hunter]

35. I want a nuclear submarine with missiles.

I won't feel adequately armed until I have one.

[jmg257]

39. now THAT is some real compensation!

[hunter]

43. I have a huge ego.

There's a lot to defend.

[moondust]

53. And out on the wild frontier of 1789

law enforcement might be a day's ride away so you're pretty much left to fend for yourself out there.

I personally suspect 2A had a lot to do with slavery. Without the threat of a musket ball or bullet in the back, many slaves might risk escaping to freedom and the slave economy collapses without them.

[jmg257]

55. Definitely it was a big consideration. Major debates in Virginia raifying

Committees about federal control of their militia vs possible slave uprisings.

Also smuggling, standing armies, enforcing laws, etc.

[Cha]

54. Kick for George!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

59. Ya think?

[guss]

63. Gun regulations

If you buy fireworks on the 4th of July as a person u can buy low grade fireworks.
if you want to anything bigger you have to have to be a explosive expert with a license and Training.
Why cant guns be the same way?
You do hunter safety course and you can use small arms fire, shotguns and rifles.
if you want to go further you train in automatics and Higher power arms. you train and if you
pass you get a License for that, but you have to keep your training up like scuba diving. keep a book
to show that you still qualified to handle that weapon. and that could go up for higher power weapons.
it would be bragging rights and you would be a expert in the field.
I think it would be better then bubba at a gun show just getting a howitzer to blow up stuff

[Gothmog]

67. Great meme

[Duppers]

70. Why just keep it at firearms?

Everyone should have a right to grenades, dynamite, atomic bombs. With no regulations for background checks at all. How about armored tanks too?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't limit it to firearms, it only says the right to bear arms.

[uriel1972]

71. I just think of the...

poor bears

[Duppers]

74. 😁

[oneshooter]

89. You can own a "armored tank", all it takes is money.

And it can have a fully functional cannon, and MG;s. Again, all it takes is money, and time.

http://www.usmilitaryvehicles.com/ww2armor.html

http://vintagemilitaryvehicles.com/forsale/vehiclesforsale/

[billh58]

75. K & R!

Common sense rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Did you post that with a quill pen and/or a hand-cranked press?

If not, your "common sense"...isn't.

[stephensolomita]

80. Second Amendment Exclusion

Isn't it interesting that carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense can get you killed? If you're black.

[pbmus]

81. So many wrongs surrounding gun laws, really should start with the most obvious

[BobTheSubgenius]

82. Rate of fire, yes.

Also 4x the muzzle velocity and range (and some, a LOT more than that) and an improvement in that is almost incalculable.

[Different Drummer]

83. K&R for greatest exposure! n/t

[billh58]

86. I'll second that! n/t

[ileus]

87. Didn't GW realize guns killz peepoles?

[aikoaiko]

95. Funny, not really true, but funny.

[pbmus]

96. Ok...

The fastest, I mean fastest I have seen an AR-15 shoot is 25 rounds in 2.5 seconds. That was due to the use of a slide stock, which causes the weapon’s recoil to allow the shooter to depress and press the trigger without stopping, allowing a semi-automatic weapon to fire as if it were an automatic. The video explains why this is such a unique and extraordinary weapons accessory.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-rounds-does-a-semi-automatic-rifle-fire-per-minute