The gun debate in my opinion boils down to

Do you think I pull this stuff out of my ass about civilians having the right to own:

machine guns, mortars, artillery, antiaircraft guns, tanks, armored cars, grenades, and HE (high explosive) rounds for same? With the aforementioned being LEGAL your bitching about an AR-15 WHICH HAS BEEN LEGAL TO OWN SINCE 1963 is ridiculous.

Yes. That’s exactly what you’ve done.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.

At issue is the 2nd Amendment and the intent when written. Your mentioning militia anything after that is not germane.

The 2nd amendment was written in 1791. It was written nearly a decade after America defeated the Brits. The Constitution had been ratified two years before this, signaling the defeat of the anti-federalists. Madison didn’t even want the addition of the BOR, seeing the Constitution as sufficient. But he and other federalists were willing to compromise a bit with the losing side. That was very generous of them.

The context of that amendment meant it was not designed as a way to raise troops to fight a foreign power in control of America. That scenario no longer existed. And control of the militias was now federalized, as per the Constitution. That foreign power was vanquished. It was written in the context of an established state, a new state, and it set things up to secure that state, including the 2nd.

Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Congress shall have the power, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Article 1 section 2 of the constitution. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Back to the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

obviously refers to the protection of the state itself, not to the enabling of its overthrow.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

refers to securing that state. “Bear arms” was understood at that time, and for well over a century afterward, to mean a military context only. It had nothing whatsoever to do with home use, or hunting. That aspect of self-defense and self-provision was established centuries before via English Common Law.

Again, there is absolutely no mention, anywhere, regarding an individual’s “right” to purchase weaponry for any use outside of a well-regulated militia, and absolutely no mention, whatsoever, of keeping up with weapons technology. Not in Madison’s notes. Not in the text itself. Nowhere. It doesn’t exist.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.

Zooey wrote:

This.

This is why I don’t allow argument papers on this topic.

It isn’t an actual argument that respects the rules of logic and rational argumentation as laid out by Aristotle. It is a religious argument with underlying realities that do not correspond. It isn’t an “argument.” It is a declaration of religious allegiance.

True, Zooey. And “religious allegiance” is an excellent way to put it, as is “not following the rules of logic and rational argumentation.”

For instance, bnw previously asserted that Americans are not legally constrained regarding the kinds of weapons they can buy. I asked him to prove this. He responds by showing a picture of some completely random and unspecified re-enactment. This, of course, tells us absolutely nothing about the legal constraints involved, who bought what and how, what kinds of local, state and federal laws come into play, etc. etc. It tells us nothing about all the limitations imposed on those weapons, the buyers, the time and place limits and so on. Where they are stored once the re-enactment is over (or prior to it), and so on.

It’s not “proof” of his assertion in the slightest. At best, it’s “proof” that re-enactments occur, which wasn’t the topic under discussion. Not by light years. And even there, it’s weak. The picture doesn’t tell us if the re-enactment is even legal.

It’s classic desperation. Moving those old goalposts again and again. Flailing away, and a true sign of being utterly out of one’s depths.

I’ve already wasted waaaay too much time arguing with bnw. Time to do other things.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.

Let’s pump the brakes a bit, okay?

Nobody’s going to “win” anyway of course since as Zooey says this is a clash of worldviews.

Don’t want no board wars.

No problem. I won’t be discussing anything with bnw from this point forward. He called me a liar (twice) in this thread, and I’m old school about things like that. That crosses the line in my book of life. So he’s on my virtual ignore list.

Good pic, btw. Last night’s Game of Thrones had two epic battles, but one that was especially Medieval. Easily one of its best episodes, evah.

Nobody is going to win? Connecticut just won…

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/supreme-court-declines-consideration-of-law-banning-some-semi-automatic-assault-weapons/index.html

Supreme Court lets stand law banning some semi-automatic assault weapons

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Updated 9:45 AM ET, Mon June 20, 2016
sandy hook cop gun control debate feyerick pkg nr_00011719

Former Sandy Hook top cop pushing for safer guns 03:01
(CNN)The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a constitutional challenge to a Connecticut gun law passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

The law bans certain semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Although the decision comes days after the Orlando shooting, that event probably didn’t move the justices either way. In recent years the Court has declined to take up a major Second Amendment case. In 2008, 5-4 Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, and except for a follow up decision two years later, the court has not weighed in again.
Since then, a raging debate has developed between gun rights supporters who say that lower courts are not heeding supreme court precedent and gun control activists who say they are pushing for what they consider reasonable restrictions.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Zooey wrote:

This.

This is why I don’t allow argument papers on this topic.

It isn’t an actual argument that respects the rules of logic and rational argumentation as laid out by Aristotle. It is a religious argument with underlying realities that do not correspond. It isn’t an “argument.” It is a declaration of religious allegiance.

True, Zooey. And “religious allegiance” is an excellent way to put it, as is “not following the rules of logic and rational argumentation.”

For instance, bnw previously asserted that Americans are not legally constrained regarding the kinds of weapons they can buy. I asked him to prove this. He responds by showing a picture of some completely random and unspecified re-enactment. This, of course, tells us absolutely nothing about the legal constraints involved, who bought what and how, what kinds of local, state and federal laws come into play, etc. etc. It tells us nothing about all the limitations imposed on those weapons, the buyers, the time and place limits and so on. Where they are stored once the re-enactment is over (or prior to it), and so on.

It’s not “proof” of his assertion in the slightest. At best, it’s “proof” that re-enactments occur, which wasn’t the topic under discussion. Not by light years. And even there, it’s weak. The picture doesn’t tell us if the re-enactment is even legal.

It’s classic desperation. Moving those old goalposts again and again. Flailing away, and a true sign of being utterly out of one’s depths.

I’ve already wasted waaaay too much time arguing with bnw. Time to do other things.

It is called Class 3 title 2 items of the National Firearms Act. READ IT! Look at the 6 categories. Then call military re-enactors that actually have the non demil armor and artillery. Don’t believe me about the 88? Look up the Secret City festival on youtube! Look at the videos from year after year of different WW2 battle re-enactments will fully operating and firing armor and artillery. All in the very same place year after year in the very heart of downtown Oak Ridge, TN. LOOK IT UP. Again if you are a law abiding citizen and have the money and access to buy a legally available Class 3 title 2 item you can! I’ve never moved any goalposts. I’ve explained how you and others are woefully ignorant about the so called “Assault Weapons” Ban of 1994 and about owning other items available to the law abiding citizen via the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Fixed that one for you.

I’ve overused the “mere warnings” card. I don’t want to escalate further so let’s move on.

bnw wrote:

You didn’t fix anything. You censored what I wrote which was in response to his calling me “utterly out of one’s depths” which you let stand.

Note: none of this is personal. I offered a warning on one guys’s post, the esclation was 2 deletions. That’s just a normal sequence.

Next is locking, which is hereby done.

Next is banning.

And at no point are mod decisions supposed to be debated on content forums (this, or the football one). If you want to discuss them go here. http://theramshuddle.com/forum/board-policies-issues/

…