HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » How to shut up a gun nut ...

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:00 PM

How to shut up a gun nut about his Second Amendment rights.

Just ask him why you can't bring a gun onto an airplane.

How dare they "infringe" on his 2nd amendment rights?

73 replies, 15978 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 73 replies Author Time Post
Reply How to shut up a gun nut about his Second Amendment rights. (Original post)
world wide wally Apr 2013 OP
JohnnyBoots Apr 2013 #1
Bucky Apr 2013 #63
rrneck Apr 2013 #2
freshwest Apr 2013 #3
hlthe2b Apr 2013 #4
Bucky Apr 2013 #64
Hoyt Apr 2013 #5
Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #6
Mr.Pain Apr 2013 #7
upaloopa Apr 2013 #11
Mr.Pain Apr 2013 #13
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #25
MillennialDem Apr 2013 #30
IrishAyes Apr 2013 #41
Mr.Pain Apr 2013 #48
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #62
LiberalFighter Apr 2013 #8
Riftaxe Apr 2013 #9
world wide wally Apr 2013 #28
premium Apr 2013 #35
IrishAyes Apr 2013 #42
premium Apr 2013 #46
davidpdx Apr 2013 #50
upaloopa Apr 2013 #10
rightsideout Apr 2013 #12
CANDO Apr 2013 #14
CTyankee Apr 2013 #26
CANDO Apr 2013 #27
davidpdx Apr 2013 #51
CANDO Apr 2013 #69
davidpdx Apr 2013 #72
X_Digger Apr 2013 #60
CANDO Apr 2013 #70
X_Digger Apr 2013 #73
jimmy the one Apr 2013 #15
hack89 Apr 2013 #16
world wide wally Apr 2013 #17
hack89 Apr 2013 #18
jimmy the one Apr 2013 #19
hack89 Apr 2013 #20
world wide wally Apr 2013 #21
hack89 Apr 2013 #22
jimmy the one Apr 2013 #23
hack89 Apr 2013 #24
jimmy the one Apr 2013 #54
hack89 Apr 2013 #58
jimmy the one Apr 2013 #65
hack89 Apr 2013 #67
jimmy the one Apr 2013 #55
IrishAyes Apr 2013 #43
hack89 Apr 2013 #47
Jamaal510 Apr 2013 #29
IrishAyes Apr 2013 #44
DFW Apr 2013 #31
world wide wally Apr 2013 #32
Socal31 Apr 2013 #33
DFW Apr 2013 #34
Recursion Apr 2013 #49
Duckhunter935 Apr 2013 #52
cleanhippie Apr 2013 #36
world wide wally Apr 2013 #37
cleanhippie Apr 2013 #38
world wide wally Apr 2013 #39
cleanhippie Apr 2013 #40
IrishAyes Apr 2013 #45
SummerSnow Apr 2013 #53
sigmasix Apr 2013 #56
sigmasix Apr 2013 #57
X_Digger Apr 2013 #59
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #61
world wide wally Apr 2013 #68
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #71
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2013 #66

Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:05 PM

1. fire in a theatre

 

Great arguement, Dershowitz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyBoots (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 04:18 PM

63. not the same at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:06 PM

2. I don't understand. ntt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:06 PM

3. Public safety before 'rights' granted by public documents. True.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:06 PM

4. I hate to tell you, but at least 1 competing organization to NRA is advocating for guns on airplanes

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I see the spokesman for this insane group (I think it is Gun Owners of America) every now and then... It would be hard to say that he makes LaPierre look "sane" as that would be quite the stretch, but this guy belongs in a straight jacket, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 04:21 PM

64. Or have the carpets on planes soaking wet with with petrol & give all passengers matches.

This would end terrorism on that plane guaranteed... Firearms? Try "fire" on entire body!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:07 PM

5. Most are not very bright, or educated. They won't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:09 PM

6. Have you tried that? A lot of those folks want to be able to carry on a plane.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:29 PM

7. Rhetorically speaking...

Pretend its a parallel universe and you need to travel by air. You pick up your boarding pass as usual, however you find yourself also given a special weapon, a gun, with a special type of bullet that will not penetrate the aircraft hull, and you are asked to step aside and receive a moment of training about how to use it. You are instructed that IF someone one the plane were to assault a passenger or crew member that you should act swiftly to render that person unable to continue an attack. What if everyone on the plane had the same "special gun" and the same instructions. My questions are as follows. Would it be considered a "level playing field"? Do you think that your safety would be at higher risk? If you were indeed a terrorist with a plan, would you reconsider? Would you treat the person sitting next to you with the utmost respect?

Personally, I would be on my best behavior.

As a science fiction nut I just couldn't help but imagine this scenario, while I was reading the previous posts.
Orwell would be proud!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Pain (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:41 PM

11. I think that there is an inverse relationship to more guns and being safe. The more guns the better

chance of you being shot. This more guns will make us safe myth should have been put to rest a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:37 PM

13. I suppose if I were wishing to retain my right to act irrationally without consequences,

I wouldn't want armed people around me. As for the scenario I wrote. I'm certain I would not "feel" safer, but all in all I would be more afraid for my own behavior than the behavior of those around me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Pain (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:32 PM

25. Owning a gun for "safety" is irrational.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Pain (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:30 PM

30. Guns do not cause explosive decompression of an airplane, that has been tested by mythbusters

 

Not that I think carrying guns on planes is a good idea!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Pain (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:39 PM

41. Are you

Trying to drag us back to that old saw, "A well armed society is a polite society"?

Complete BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IrishAyes (Reply #41)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 12:06 AM

48. What would the world be like if "everyone" had the same powers as superman?

Would there still be chaos?
Only you, are responsible for your own actions.
No one else, if you force your will upon another, then that person has no free will of their own.
Would it then be that their actions would be your responsibility

"speak softly... but carry a big stick" Harry S. Truman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Pain (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 11:13 AM

62. Ever read Orwell's views in guns?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:35 PM

8. Do citizens have a right to take a firearm into a prison?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:18 PM

9. I imagine even the most rabid would be aware

that airlines are private property. It is the same thing that prevents anti-gun nuts from peeing on your living room carpet at 3 am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riftaxe (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 03:49 PM

28. A store is private property as well, and yet we see pictures of these trigger holes carrying

their bushmasters into department stores claiming it is their right to do so. Isn't there any law about intimidation of everyone else in the store?
If not... that sucks! So, shouldn't there be a law against sucky things at least?
(Obviously phrased to make a point)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:35 AM

35. Any private business can prohibit firearms,

 

a lot of business' have made the decision to allow firearms to be carried. I live in a town where not one business has banned the carrying of firearms, and that includes WalMart and Home Depot, so far, not one incident.

Personally, I don't carry a gun and I think it's stupid to carry a rifle into a store , unless it's a gun store, but I have no problem with someone who is licensed to carry concealed to do so, I won't even know if done right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:41 PM

42. Just why the hell should anyone think they NEED to carry a firearm in public?

I might think I should be able to pee on your living room carpet at 3 a.m. too, but that wouldn't make it right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IrishAyes (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:49 PM

46. Well, apparently 49 out of 50 states disagree with you,

 

and soon it will be 50 states that disagree with you when IL goes with a CC law.

Peeing on someone's carpet other than your own at 3:00 am, just might get you shot. I recommend that you don't try it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 03:55 AM

50. The person you responded to was likely referring to the picture of the person in JC Penny's

With a semi-automatic weapon. Why should retailers HAVE to make it explicit that bringing guns into the store is not ok? I'll tell you why, there are people out there that have more than a few screws loose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:37 PM

10. For me I am more about reducing gun violence. I don't think this contributes to that.

I think we need to ignore the fringes in the gun debate and work together to reduce gun violence. This seems to me to be a fringe idea as much as someone spouting 2A rights all the time. Both should be ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:49 PM

12. I'll have to try that one

Only thing is, the gun fanatics won't listen. It's pretty much a worthless cause reasoning with them.

Instead, I just make fun of them for being a slave to their paranoia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:37 PM

14. Try taking a gun to work with you.

 

I've never had an employer who allowed a gun into or onto their property. Not even if left in your personal vehicle. If its an iron clad "right", why do we disallow felons this "right"? Answer...its not a "right" if it can be legislatively toyed with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:41 PM

26. I used to work for a nonprofit organization. I had a volunteer doing our newsletter. She

came to my office one day and proudly showed me her handgun, which she carried in her purse. I told her that she was not allowed to bring the gun into the office. I didn't care if she resigned her volunteer position, but she didn't and there was never a problem after that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:37 PM

27. A fellow employee was fired last year for showing his handgun.

 

The dumb shit thought he was being cool showing it to other gun enthusiasts. Well, someone reported it to management and they called the police. He was then fired immediately. Right to keep and bear arms is not iron clad. Many restrictions apply for good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 03:58 AM

51. I'm curious what type of a business it was (is)?

I don't need to know the name, just which industry. It kind of sounds like retail by your description, but maybe I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #51)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:02 PM

69. Heavy Haul Trucking Company

 

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #69)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:36 PM

72. Thanks

That's interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:30 AM

60. Is the right of free speech / association not a right because you must get a permit to parade?

After all, that's "legislatively toying with" the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #60)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:04 PM

70. Apparently not.

 

Free speech zones and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #70)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:10 PM

73. And is voting not a right because of residency legislation?

Every right can be infringed by the government, given strict circumstances.

Time/place/manner restrictions on speech, length of residency before voting, warrantless searches on crossing the border, requiring licenses from the FCC before broadcasting, permits for parades, etc.

No, I don't think you have a firm grasp on rights, if you don't think it's a right if there is any 'legislatively toying' going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 07:48 AM

15. What do you call a Gunnut in Love

What do you call a Gunnut in Love?

Another background check.

------------------

NRA = Nutty Rightwingers Armed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 08:12 AM

16. I think everyone understands there are limits on where you can take a gun.

the fight is where the line is drawn, not whether there is a line at all.

There are simplistic arguments made by many in this discussion - on both sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 11:35 AM

17. The point being made is that it is perfectly constitutional to regulate guns.

Wasn't there something about a "well regulated militia"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 11:43 AM

18. No one really disagrees with that.

Considering the thousands of regulations presently in place, one has to be really out of touch with reality to think otherwise.

The discussion America is having right now is exactly what additional regulations we will have.

btw - "well regulated" in the context of the 2A has nothing to to do with rules and regulations. That is a modern definition of regulated that did not come in to common usages until the industrial revolution. In 1781 regulated in the context of the 2A meant well trained and equipped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:43 PM

19. websters 1828

hack: "well regulated" in the context of the 2A has nothing to to do with rules and regulations. That is a modern definition of regulated that did not come in to common usages until the industrial revolution. In 1781 regulated in the context of the 2A meant well trained and equipped.

Is that so? watch me perform a magic trick:

websters 1828 dictionary (well before the industrial revolution):
REG'ULATE, 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

REGULA'TION, n. 1. The act of regulating or reducing to order.
2. A rule or order prescribed by a superior for the management of some business, or for the government of a company or society.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,regulation

And just to rub it in, Abracadabra, here's the articles of confederation separating the two concepts which scalia in heller contends are one & the same:

Articles of Confederation, the original constitution of the United States:
November 1777, Article VI (+emph): ".. every state shall always keep up a well regulated AND disciplined mlitia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

Note the AND between well regulated & disciplined. Hack says 'well regulated' means 'well trained & equipped', which would be what disciplined meant, while regulated via webster meant of course to subject to rules & restrictions.
Well trained & equipped, as hack put it, is nowt to be found in websters 1828 definitions of regulate & regulations, nowt to be found (tho order is).
You can go back to johnsons dictionary of about 1750 for his definition of regulations & regulate, but it's pretty much the same as websters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:08 PM

20. I'll go with Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.


military exercises and evolutions = well regulated.

So lets agree that there is more than one definition of well regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:17 PM

21. Let's also agree that it is not 1776 anymore and it is only logical to make further regulations

regarding a new situation. We are stupid not to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:22 PM

22. The 2A can be regulated. No doubt about that.

the discussion America is having right now is exactly what those new regulations should be. We will come to a consensus fairly soon - some on both sides will be very unhappy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:27 PM

23. many aspects in well regulated

hack channels alex hamilton: To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

That rules & regulations were indeed attached to a well reg'd militia is not the point which hamilton was trying to make, so there's little reason for him to have pointed them out.
You realize of course hamilton is contending that citizens cannot be expected to reach the degree of perfection of a well reg'd militia.
Your argument fails, since hamilton is providing simply one aspect of a well regulated militia - he is not going into full detail about what a well regulated militia would be, just that the aspect of training citizens to well regulated perfection is inobtainable by repetitive military exercise.

hack: military exercises and evolutions = well regulated.

certainly one aspect of contributing to a well reg'd militia, but not the entire meaning as it meant then.

hack: So lets agree that there is more than one definition of well regulated.

You sidestep, there are many aspects of well regulated as meant in 2ndA.
You ducked websters 1828 definition of regulate & regulations, and sidestepped away from when you said this: "well regulated" in the context of the 2A has nothing to to do with rules and regulations. That is a modern definition of regulated that did not come in to common usages until the industrial revolution.

Yet it was right there in websters 1828, regulate meant rules & restrictions, well prior to the industrial revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #23)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:29 PM

24. Ok - I was wrong about the date.

my point still stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #24)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:54 AM

54. sam johnson 1775 dictionary

hack: "well regulated" in the context of the 2A has nothing to to do with rules and regulations. That is a modern definition of regulated that did not come in to common usages until the industrial revolution. In 1781 regulated in the context of the 2A meant well trained and equipped.

hack - after I posted websters 1828 definition of 'regulate' (above post):
Ok - I was wrong about the date. my point still stands.

Your point collapses; Hack contends that websters 1828 definition should not apply to what founding fathers intended in 2ndA in 1791 by 'well regulated', since it was some 35 years later.
Yet samuel johnson in his 1755 dictionary (which the better source? dictionary wrote 35 years prior to a word usage, or 35 years after?) also wrote of rules to regulate:

A Dictionary of the English Language 1755 Classic by Samuel Johnson:
To Régulate. To adjust by rule or method. Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.
To direct. Regulate the patient in his manner of living. Wiseman.
Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life. Dryden.

http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=8802

Here's how 'militia' was defined by johnson in 1755: Milítia. n.s. [Latin.] The trainbands; the standing force of a nation.
The militia was so settled by law, that a sudden army could be drawn together. Clarendon


And 'Arms' in 1755: Arms - Weapons of offence, or armour of defence.
Those arms which Mars before Had giv'n the vanquish'd, now the victor bore. Pope's Iliad.
2 A state of hostility. Sir Edward Courtney, and the haughty prelate,
With many more confed'rates, are in arms. Shakes. R. III.
3 War in general. Arms and the man I sing. Dryd. VIrgil.
Him Paris follow'd to the dire alarms, Both breathing slaughter, both resolv'd in arms. Pope's Iliad.
4 Action; the act of taking arms. Up rose the victor angels, and to arms
The matin trumpet sung. Milton's Paradise Lost


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #54)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:38 AM

58. From the Oxford English Dictionary

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:44 PM

65. halonen opinion proves nothing

hack/brian halonen: The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected

Cherry picking a half dozen vague examples & then proferring a pro gun opinion on what was intended, proves absolutely NOTHING, bud, about what the 2ndA intended & what was historically handed down over two centuries. You provide typical revisionist history on the 2ndA, is all.
.. you still got shot down, rules & regs were indeed mentioned in both websters 1828 & johnsons 1755.
.. halonen opinion proves nothing except you can provide a modern day friendly source to say, just about anything you want him to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #65)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:48 PM

67. Ok. We will just have to disagree

it is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #24)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:01 AM

55. disciplined

hack: "well regulated" in the context of the 2A has nothing to to do with rules and regulations. That is a modern definition of regulated that did not come in to common usages until the industrial revolution. In 1781 regulated in the context of the 2A meant well trained and equipped.

Scalia used the word 'disciplined' iirc; Websters 1828 defines discipline thusly:

DISCIPLINE, n. [L., to learn.]
4. Subjection to laws, rules, order, precepts or regulations; as, the troops are under excellent discipline; the passions should be kept under strict discipline.
1. Education; instruction; cultivation and improvement, comprehending instruction in arts, sciences, correct sentiments, morals and manners, and due subordination to authority.
2. Instruction and government, comprehending the communication of knowledge and the regulation of practice; as military discipline, which includes instruction in manual exercise, evolutions and subordination.
3. Rule of government; method of regulating principles and practice; as the discipline prescribed for the church.
5. Correction; chastisement; punishment intended to correct crimes or errors; as the discipline of the strap.

1. To instruct or educate; to inform the mind; to prepare by instructing in correct principles and habits; as, to discipline youth for a profession, or for future usefulness.
2. To instruct and govern; to teach rules and practice, and accustom to order and subordination; as, to discipline troops or an army.


Sam Johnson in 1755 had no listing for 'discipline' that I could find.
Scalia used strained reasoning & retrofabrication, to impose his very own interpretation of what 'well regulated' meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:44 PM

43. No, everyone does NOT understand or accept limits about much of anything

There are plenty who want to pack heat to church!

Oh my, wouldn't the Prince of Peace be impressed with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IrishAyes (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:51 PM

47. They are a minority. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:21 PM

29. One thing I do

when dealing with gun nuts is that whenever they talk about the importance of so-called "freedom" of law-abiding gun owners, I always ask them about the freedom of people to go places safely without worrying about getting shot. My right to be safe is at least just as important as someone else's right to shoot people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:45 PM

44. Yeah,

Can't you just imagine the carnage on Black Friday with crazed materialists vying for the last big screen tv?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:37 PM

31. Are you crazy? SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

That is now probably the next piece of legislation to be introduced in the Senate by Ted Cruz and in the House by Louie Gohmert. Keep yer trap shut, and don't give our congressional whackos ideas!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:15 AM

32. Oooooops!.... I didn't think of that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:55 AM

33. Are all gun owners gun nuts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 07:32 AM

34. Far from it. The problem lies elsewhere.

Our problem is that under existing laws, it is far too easy for nuts to become gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #33)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 03:39 AM

49. No, but anyone who objects to the legislation du jour will be called one

Whatever the reasons behind that objection. And it will be assumed that he also opposes all other regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #33)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:44 AM

52. Of course they are

 

just look at the posts here. The best part is they do not understand why gun owners do not trust them to put even more restrictions on. Name calling and ad hoc attacks always work well to foster discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 09:52 AM

36. Wow, you are SO smart! That wilfully ignorant spew has only been posted about a MILLION times.

So you read that on your facebook newsfeed then ran here to DU and posted it, thinking the NO ONE but you has ever thought to ask that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:39 AM

37. My, my.... aren't we a snide little priss today?

Nobody requires you to respond to anything if it doesn't meet your standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:52 AM

38. That's the best you got, snide little priss?



Come on, sweet child, you can do better. I know you call people worse names than that on the playground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:21 PM

39. You don't warrant any further replies other than to say that you are more self righteous than the

people you love to rant at.
And you "ain't no" hippie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:27 PM

40. Or to put it another way, your childish meme has nothing supporting it

So you call people names and hurl insults instead.


Good luck with that, you will certainly enjoy your time here.

Remember to stay classy, and most importantly.....

Have a nice day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:47 PM

45. I never knew a real hippie

with such a chip on his shoulder, that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:12 AM

53. I would like to ask them..

"Why can't you carry a gun into a state or federal building?" That'll get a rise out of them. One day one of them will try it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:22 AM

56. or ask them about thier struggle for pedophile gun rights

Since the NRA spent so much money and political capitol on defending the gun ownership rights of pedophiles, wife beaters and drunks. Ted Nugent maintains a board position with the NRA, yet he is a self described pedophile and serial poacher. Support for responsible gun ownership cannot be found amongst the NRA's pedophiles and wife beaters. The destruction of the NRA and other domestic terror organizations should be the aim of every fair-minded and patriotic American. The NRA represents gun ownership for violent criminals and child rapists- not respect for the constitution.
The extremism represented by the NRA will eventually be discarded on the historical heap of garbage, lies and murder commited by right wing extremists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:23 AM

57. or ask them about thier struggle for pedophile gun rights

Since the NRA spent so much money and political capitol on defending the gun ownership rights of pedophiles, wife beaters and drunks. Ted Nugent maintains a board position with the NRA, yet he is a self described pedophile and serial poacher. Support for responsible gun ownership cannot be found amongst the NRA's pedophiles and wife beaters. The destruction of the NRA and other domestic terror organizations should be the aim of every fair-minded and patriotic American. The NRA represents gun ownership for violent criminals and child rapists- not respect for the constitution.
The extremism represented by the NRA will eventually be discarded on the historical heap of garbage, lies and murder commited by right wing extremists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:28 AM

59. Commercial planes are private property, not public spaces.


I carry my gun on my hip every time I fly. Of course, it is my friend's plane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 11:08 AM

61. Wrong 2 ways: (1) You CAN bring a gun onto an airplane, and...

 

(2) You failed to shut me up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #61)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:55 PM

68. I think it's only fair that you tell us what airline you fly on so we can all make other flight

arrangements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #68)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:07 PM

71. Oh, heavens no. I like the suspense.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 06:02 PM

66. Why can't you bring a gun on an airplane?

Of course you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread