General Discussion

Squinch

(58,934 posts)

11. I'm my own militia!!!!

Sun Jun 19, 2016, 12:51 PM

Jun 2016

But really, Thomas Jefferson was also a slaveholding pedophile, and most of his good ideas are cribbed from Madison, so there's that... Never liked the guy.

(Sally was 15 or younger when he started in on her.)

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

273 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No non-sworn civilian should own any device that is DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently [View all] uponit7771 Jun 2016 OP

But Thomas Jefferson commanded me to own twelve AR-15s. Orrex Jun 2016 #1

lol...+1, they'll fall back to the constitution but the SC has already weighed in on that. These... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #3

I'm my own militia!!!! Squinch Jun 2016 #11

Conditional agreement WayBeyondBlue Jun 2016 #2

Police and military are sworn's ... everyone else are civilians. I do get the point though, the poli uponit7771 Jun 2016 #6

I agree that they should not be BUT they became more armed because the Jim Beard Jun 2016 #12

So then it might be reasonable WayBeyondBlue Jun 2016 #14

Yeah.. wow, didn't know about the gun store part... then this should be done in phases. non-sworn uponit7771 Jun 2016 #52

And if you do more research Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #64

That's great, they shouldn't own devices designed to kill massive amounts of humans either regardles uponit7771 Jun 2016 #72

I remember seeing a few using their Jim Beard Jun 2016 #240

Cops didn't have enough firepower, Crooks too much Jim Beard Jun 2016 #243

Thats crazy uponit7771 Jun 2016 #266

Let the swarming begin. Kingofalldems Jun 2016 #4

Might go over better without the insults Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #5

The statement doesn't have any insults in them I hope... gumper is mine, feel free to use at will uponit7771 Jun 2016 #7

I try not to insult groups of people Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #9

Most seem physically incapable... TipTok Jun 2016 #263

Original intent means they can own as man flintlocks as they want. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #8

And you typed this on some kind of Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #10

Legal doctrine of original intent was written by quill. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #78

+1, yeap... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #19

So the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to radio, tv, or the internet? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #26

Don't confuse them with facts Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #28

Red Herring, the point being intent is subjectively selected by gumper crew uponit7771 Jun 2016 #51

How is it a red herring? If the technological limit of the 18th Century applies to the 2nd Just reading posts Jun 2016 #53

The intent of the 2a wasn't for non-sworns to have devices DESIGNED to kill as many people as possib uponit7771 Jun 2016 #65

You proposed limiting the Constitution to 18th Century technology. Why would it not apply to Just reading posts Jun 2016 #73

Strawman, this is false on its face... I said "... RELATIVELY efficiently..." so that covers your... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #76

A declaration that you've covered his argument is not axiomatic friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #94

What is axiomatic is the attempts at obfuscations from folk who advocate for near open ended 2a uponit7771 Jun 2016 #141

Nearly open ended, lol Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #147

You are dodging the question: Does the First Amendment apply to electronic media? friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #79

You really expect an answer? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #82

Not really, but it does help the intellectual vacancy behind the panic mongering friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #100

Not all... next? tia uponit7771 Jun 2016 #144

The second was for civilians Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #81

Codswallop. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #110

All you have to do is change it Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #116

Easier to re-intrepret it, truebluegreen Jun 2016 #244

Your post is both ignorant about the militia and misleading about your interlocutor friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #119

Hmm...i think, since the constitutional militias were well-regulated, jmg257 Jun 2016 #129

Are you implying that a link that doesn't work to a page that doesn't exist truebluegreen Jun 2016 #242

Except the supreme court said the 2nd amendment meant individuals... TampaAnimusVortex Jun 2016 #137

Going to address the points I raised? truebluegreen Jun 2016 #238

If he doesn't, I will- the Supremes reaffirmed Heller 8-0 a couple of months ago, in Caetano v.... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #245

Ouch, that had to hurt, 8-0 Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #246

I'm sure it did, and I'm glad of it. Just wait for the first firearms permit denied in MA... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #247

Not really the case gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #127

+1, so even then .. .relatively speaking... non sworn's did not have access to weapons that could... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #151

The majority of the Malitia were armes with smoothbore weapons. oneshooter Jun 2016 #219

Balderdash !!! uponit7771 Jun 2016 #145

You are an expert with the insults Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #60

K, what is insulting... tia uponit7771 Jun 2016 #68

Gumper for one Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #75

If 'gumper' is not insulting, than 'Dunning-Kruger survivor' would also not be, IMO. friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #96

How about "hoplophobe". oneshooter Jun 2016 #223

yes, and I have never used it Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #224

Gumper is term of endearment no? ;-) uponit7771 Jun 2016 #162

As much as some other words I can think of Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #169

OK... why is gumper offensive? ... I'll stop using it if you give a reasonable reason... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #172

I have to give a reason, no Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #176

You've not stated why its offensive ... let me know... I'm not trying to insult anyone... just have uponit7771 Jun 2016 #178

And you can do that without the insults Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #188

I am sworn, I guess I am good then Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #191

ok... ok, I'll refine the statement... someone found this down thread though... also a person uponit7771 Jun 2016 #197

Keep moving those goalposts Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #202

No goal post move, just a continuance on narrowing who can own these devices designed or could be uponit7771 Jun 2016 #205

Lol. nt Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #206

No crimson fish here, we are simply pointing out your special pleading friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #69

What has been left out? tia uponit7771 Jun 2016 #74

You propose that one part of the Constitution moved along with technology, but not another friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #97

This is false, and not all com tech can be allowed under the 1a uponit7771 Jun 2016 #173

Really? What communications technology isn't covered by the First Amendment? friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #226

There are restrictions to the 1st Amendment n/t doc03 Jun 2016 #118

Yes there are. There are also restrictions to the 2nd, yes? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #120

Indeed so Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #128

There also should be a lot more of them on the 2nd n/t doc03 Jun 2016 #130

Respectfully disagree. At the very least, the 1986 ban on the manufacture of transferable full auto Just reading posts Jun 2016 #132

We agree, and that restriction should include any device DESIGNED to kill massive amounts of humans uponit7771 Jun 2016 #174

Does that include cans of gasoline combined with padlocks and lenghts of chain? oneshooter Jun 2016 #221

The Supreme Court has already directly addressed this argument. Calista241 Jun 2016 #90

I see that the controllers don't have a response to this TeddyR Jun 2016 #131

No thanks- I'll keep mine all the same. nt hack89 Jun 2016 #13

You'll keep all your devices designed to kill a lot of humans efficiently? ... ok uponit7771 Jun 2016 #20

In 35 years I have never harmed a living thing with my guns hack89 Jun 2016 #25

Anecdotal conflation, we're not talking about you or your experience just making it easier to filter uponit7771 Jun 2016 #32

I have insurance and it costs a pittance hack89 Jun 2016 #102

The NRA would *love* an insurance requirement, as they sell a lot of firearms insurance to... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #105

Brought that up several times, still waiting for an intelligent response ... or any response DonP Jun 2016 #114

I think I responded to this already, the action doesn't have to be criminal plenty of accidents and uponit7771 Jun 2016 #207

Name one mass killing event that would be covered Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #211

The Orlando killing for instance... this guy was fucked up in the head... anyone who wants to kill a uponit7771 Jun 2016 #214

He was never found to be mentally defective Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #217

He hasn't yet, but anyone who kills massive amounts of people like that is fucked up in the head... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #232

Wow! Your ignorance of the insurance business is only exceeded by your ignorance .... DonP Jun 2016 #225

win win !!! uponit7771 Jun 2016 #179

I can't speak for the other poster, but I'm certainly going to keep my "assault weapons". Just reading posts Jun 2016 #29

Again, no need to confiscate these devices meant to kill a lot of humans just make folk carry 10 mil uponit7771 Jun 2016 #34

First you said no one could own them. Then they have get an unobtainable 1 million dollar insurance Just reading posts Jun 2016 #39

OK... lets settle on the 7 million... that's in the middle .. if a person who owns these devices... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #182

Name one company that sells a policy Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #196

No one said criminal, ... mental defects and "accidents" uponit7771 Jun 2016 #198

So they would not have paid out for any of the mass murders committed with firears Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #204

possibly if they acts can fit under mental defect which it seems a lot of them would seeing that's.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #209

Were any of them adjudicated Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #212

Keep them all you want, just as long as they're not designed to kill massive amounts of humans... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #180

Well, I own (among others) AR-15s, an AR-10, FN-FAL, VEPR 12....which of these can I keep? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #200

It's called fantasy land Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #208

How about my 1919A4 with tripod can I keep that? n/t oneshooter Jun 2016 #222

Abso-friggin-lutely! Just reading posts Jun 2016 #235

As long as you pay the taxes and the additional background checks Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #237

It has a semi auto side plate. n/t oneshooter Jun 2016 #271

Mine must be defective Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #31

I will just because I know it tweaks you out R.A. Ganoush Jun 2016 #193

Me too Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #30

I agree, but some love their Precious more then they love the life of innocent people. Rex Jun 2016 #15

I think there are millions of these guns out there Mojorabbit Jun 2016 #85

Hundreds of millions. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #88

FWIW, 34.9 million people (AKA voters) now participate in organized rifle competitions DonP Jun 2016 #115

True and most likely millions will never harm anyone, thank goodness! Rex Jun 2016 #229

I feel the same about fast cars and huge pickup trucks Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #236

Good I am glad we agree. Rex Jun 2016 #248

And that is why any posting about the victims of Sandy Hook or Orlando, degenerates into specs -none Jun 2016 #89

...while simultaneously degenerating into moral panic mongering. friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #98

+100 Just reading posts Jun 2016 #99

So true Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #101

Without guns causing massacres, this thread would not exist. -none Jun 2016 #106

Without a belief in animism, posts like yours would not exist friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #108

Take it up with the US House, Senate and Supreme Court NickB79 Jun 2016 #16

Those rights have already been defined already and they don't include owning devices designed to... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #22

HOW are assault weapons NOT akin to MACHINE guns. THEY ARE MACHINE GUNS. SAME PRINCIPLE. pansypoo53219 Jun 2016 #17

True, only if sarisataka Jun 2016 #18

See, semantics ... bottom line the devices like the ar-15 are designed to kill a lot of humans... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #24

Point to the decision please Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #35

well regulated has already been defined and no name calling included uponit7771 Jun 2016 #40

So you can't Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #44

Already done, not getting into more obfuscation via pointing out the obvious. Well regulated is... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #55

I guess that is why Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #57

Yes, they're also stinky... any other irrelevant information we need to add to the conversation? tia uponit7771 Jun 2016 #139

I do not think being legal is irrelevant Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #143

I'm not narrowing my position to just semi automatics and that's why I said any device .. DESIGNED.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #160

That would be all semi-automatic rifles, just say it Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #167

Nope, if its designed to fire at a relatively slow rate it wouldn't or ... take a long time to reloa uponit7771 Jun 2016 #171

Not done, and can be dismissed like it was presented- without evidence friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #61

Yeap, done... well regulated already defined... no need to go over what's already covered uponit7771 Jun 2016 #140

Semantics is one thing sarisataka Jun 2016 #126

Who decided and when? TeddyR Jun 2016 #134

Machine guns are fully automatic. "Assault weapons" are not. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #23

It is for some Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #37

More semantics, doesn't matter if fully automatic or not if they're designed to kill a lot of humans uponit7771 Jun 2016 #42

Established law disagrees with you in every respect. How 'bout that? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #95

This is false, poor verbiage has allowed gumpers to frame the position to cover too many devices... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #177

Weapons that ae in "common use" are, as per the Supremes, protected. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #195

And I think the most common type Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #199

So? Assault weapons are STILL too dangerous to be in civilian hands, pnwmom Jun 2016 #250

The post asserted that semiautomatic weapons are machine guns. This is false on the face of it. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #254

Not according to the ATF, FBI and laws and statutes Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #33

Clarification, please. What firearms are you looking to confiscate? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #21

any DEVICES designed to kill a lot of human efficiently... that covers them all. No one said ... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #27

So you plan to outlaw anything more advanced than a single shot muzzleloader. Got it. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #36

An insurance policy Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #38

Strawman, any device designed to kill a lot of humans relatively efficiently speaks for itself and.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #46

Define it, please. Saying something is ok if it takes "long" to load isn't sufficient. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #48

Already defined, "... DESIGNED..." is in the statement uponit7771 Jun 2016 #56

Which. Firearms. Do. You. Want. To. Ban? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #63

They do that on purpose Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #67

I've never been impressed by the tactic of refusing to answer a direct question because answering Just reading posts Jun 2016 #77

Yes it does Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #84

Not dodging at all, I think its a fairly solid position... dodging is all these strawmen and red... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #201

Then answer the question- it's a simple one friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #227

Strawman, you're narrowing it to firearms my statement said DEVICE which covers all kind of shit and uponit7771 Jun 2016 #168

So, if I design a gun to kill deer.... Adrahil Jun 2016 #146

relatively... but that's a good counter position too... I'll refine on this point also uponit7771 Jun 2016 #203

AKA, move the goalposts, lol Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #213

Strictly regulate semi-automatic firearms spirald Jun 2016 #41

What do you mean by "strictly regulate"? What does it mean in practice? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #45

They should be NFA firearms and treated as automatic weapons. spirald Jun 2016 #54

So I'd have to get a $200 tax stamp and go through 6 months of paperwork for each of the dozens Just reading posts Jun 2016 #58

Do you disagree with the machine gun laws? Or.. spirald Jun 2016 #71

Yes. The 1986 law which banned the manufacture of transferable machine guns is absurd. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #83

I agree Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #86

Do you draw the line anywhere? spirald Jun 2016 #111

What "right to our collective defense" would that be, and where is it encoded into law? friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #117

US Constitution - Article 1, section 8 spirald Jun 2016 #228

Which in no way limits the restrictions on government in the Bill of Rights friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #234

Sure. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #122

Sorry, didn't hear an answer to the question. spirald Jun 2016 #255

I wasn't sufficiently clear, I apologize. I do believe in government restrictions on some weaponry Just reading posts Jun 2016 #256

I think we just draw the line at a different place spirald Jun 2016 #264

You *can't* extend that law. Read Caetano v. Massachusetts, a recent Supreme Court holding: friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #272

Mandate insurance policies and if caught jail time minimum a week of advocating against guns or uponit7771 Jun 2016 #62

You do know that insurance policies can't cover criminal acts, do you not? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #66

Pesky facts again Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #70

Dont stop him, he's rolling jack_krass Jun 2016 #273

Red herring, they can cover accidents and mental issues... good try, but been here already uponit7771 Jun 2016 #138

So where are the insurance companies offering a ten million dollar policy against gun accidents and Just reading posts Jun 2016 #142

When the policies cost 550 a month they'll come out of the wood work uponit7771 Jun 2016 #157

$600 a year to exercise a constitional right? It would never survive a court challenge. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #163

Don't see anywhere that people have a CR to own devices that are DESIGNED to kill massive amounts uponit7771 Jun 2016 #164

Would it have covered any of these mass murders, no Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #150

Never said they would... good try though... you guys keep em comin... at least the retorts uponit7771 Jun 2016 #158

Yeap, that's why the any device designed to kill a lot of humans covers them all so they can't just uponit7771 Jun 2016 #47

Before Orlando TeddyR Jun 2016 #135

Regulate semi-auto pistols as machine guns spirald Jun 2016 #257

Assault weapon was coined Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #50

The "assault weapon" term was invented by gun control advocates. Adrahil Jun 2016 #148

Or not = Gun Digest...1986 jmg257 Jun 2016 #152

Looked into this.... Adrahil Jun 2016 #154

This one is even tricker... 1982 jmg257 Jun 2016 #155

That's not tricky... Adrahil Jun 2016 #161

And "sporting arm assault rifle"? What's the specs on that? jmg257 Jun 2016 #165

If it's not select-fire, it's not an "assault rifle" Adrahil Jun 2016 #175

Of course..."Semi auto assault rifle" and that new one to me "sporting arm assault rifle" jmg257 Jun 2016 #181

BTW thanks for the info from CA 1985. nt jmg257 Jun 2016 #156

no civilian or civilian law enforcement agency should have this gun BlackLivesMatter Jun 2016 #43

True, there's no need for 82nd airborne in Americas neighborhoods. The reason why non-sworn is uponit7771 Jun 2016 #49

Better what you term 'obfuscation' then what I call bafflegab... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #59

No organized military uses this weapon TeddyR Jun 2016 #136

Just as a note: Most Government Employees swear an Oath. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #80

Yep, I had too Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #87

Hey...I'm a postal worker! That means as per the OP, I get anything I want! Just reading posts Jun 2016 #91

maybe DustyJoe Jun 2016 #159

Ok... good point, that could be narrowed to the job for instance... good point though uponit7771 Jun 2016 #166

I'm sorry but "hyperbole for effect" has no effect at all. That's not why people quit responding... cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #92

Cool story pintobean Jun 2016 #93

Okay, so you want to ban all cars and trucks!!! whistler162 Jun 2016 #103

Pity that this should be seen as flamebait on an allegedly "progressive" site. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #104

Because Dems don't own a lot of guns? hack89 Jun 2016 #112

Thanks for illustrating my point. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #123

When a large proportion of the Democratic party are gun owners hack89 Jun 2016 #124

Oh, I accept the reality that we're stuck with your death toys. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #125

advocating any folk shouldn't own devices that are designed to kill massive amounts is progressive uponit7771 Jun 2016 #183

Agree. Sadly, a very vocal contingent on this site does not. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #233

My take is to ask you to specify what weapons precisely, you are referring to, and cali Jun 2016 #107

devices ... not weapons, not allowing the gumper semantic arguments here... any device uponit7771 Jun 2016 #185

I personally hate guns, dear. so take your fucking name calling and.... cali Jun 2016 #267

Then I wasn't talking about you, don't be so sensitive Cali... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #268

you absolutely fucking were. It was a post directed to ME. Period. cali Jun 2016 #269

wow... there was no "YOU" in my statement so now you're makin shit up... I was speaking of uponit7771 Jun 2016 #270

At least i can keep my AR Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #109

Ah... a crack in the statement... thx for this I'll refine uponit7771 Jun 2016 #186

Devices designed to kill humans shouldn't exist. K&R Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #113

Devices to kill humans have existed since humans have existed. And they always will. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #121

Which says something about the awkwardness of our claims to be highly evolved. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #184

It says we're smart enough to invent weapons, unlike every other species on the planet. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #251

And, kill each other. Smart? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #258

If someone is trying to kill you, the best way to prevent this is often to get them killed, either Just reading posts Jun 2016 #259

Kill you with weapons designed to kill? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #260

Well...most of them are, after all. The effective ones, anyway. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #261

Strawman, the statement included the word ... DESIGNED... good try though uponit7771 Jun 2016 #187

I was responding to post #113, not your OP. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #252

I can't own a sword? NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #149

Swords aren't DESIGNED to kill massive amounts of humans reltively efficiently uponit7771 Jun 2016 #189

Read the post I was responding to. Adrahil Jun 2016 #194

you're right uponit7771 Jun 2016 #210

Oh go blow it out you ass man! We should all be packing. JanMichael Jun 2016 #133

F@<{ that noise. Now that I've sworn can I have my AR? aikoaiko Jun 2016 #153

Yeap, ... clever gets you a long way ... lol... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #190

What about a device DESIGNED to save a lot of humans efficiently. ileus Jun 2016 #170

We'll keep those... as long as they're saving can't be switched to killing comparitively easily uponit7771 Jun 2016 #192

Define "a lot" and "efficiently" in this case. flvegan Jun 2016 #215

If they are designed to to kill a lot of humans then Americans must be using them wrong. Waldorf Jun 2016 #216

Mine are all defective of course my bolt action Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #218

Wonder what the OP would think of my Jungle Carbine. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #253

Cigarettes are going to be banned? jtx Jun 2016 #220

unnnn, it wasn't purposefully designed that way but you have a point... any device that could be use uponit7771 Jun 2016 #231

AGREED!!!! gopiscrap Jun 2016 #230

And so do you if you partake in alcohol Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #239

I don't drink and I definitely don't use or text my phone when drivingf gopiscrap Jun 2016 #249

Really? You should tell that to these guys: Just reading posts Jun 2016 #241

I assume a sworn civillian sarisataka Jun 2016 #262

So no firearms at all or a limit on rounds one can hold? N/t dilby Jun 2016 #265