Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why isn't this murder?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Well-regulated doesn't mean like EPA regulations or something. Well-regulated means disciplined, trained, regimented, etc.

    Comment


    • Says you. I think it's a pretty compelling argument that "well regulated" means just that, regulated. As in government regulations placed upon it.
      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

      Comment


      • The regulations back then were things like, "Show up for drill," or "Bring at least 20 cartridges with you when summoned." They would never have told the militia that it couldn't have the best possible gear.
        John Brown did nothing wrong.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dinner View Post
          Ahh, I'm racist against my fellow white people because I enjoy bashing the south for its numerous failures. I see. Get over your butt hurt, boy, because your claim doesn't pass the smell test. Either that or you don't know what the word racism means, dumb ass.

          No, I think it was more about your use of the term "sand ******".

          Just a guess, though.
          "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
          "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

          Comment


          • Washington even required adult white males to own a firearm. Remember the anti-health care reform argument about the government supposedly not being able to require people to buy something? It seemed like our first president thought it did have that power and that it should have that power.
            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

            Comment


            • Before anyone asks for a link here is The Militia Act of 1792: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Felch View Post
                The regulations back then were things like, "Show up for drill," or "Bring at least 20 cartridges with you when summoned." They would never have told the militia that it couldn't have the best possible gear.
                Perhaps, but it also may have meant that the intention was to consolidate on choice of weaponry etc. so that standardized armaments, spare parts, ammuniition could be used for the purposes of militia activities. However, regardless the rationale for not infrigning on the right to bear arms, the operative words are that right to keep and bear arms was not to be infinged.
                "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                Comment


                • But even the right wing agrees some infringement is allowed. For instances criminals can be striped of their right to own guns as can mentally ill people so surely it's not that cut and dried.
                  Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dinner View Post
                    Before anyone asks for a link here is The Militia Act of 1792: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
                    Originally posted by U.S. Constitution
                    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
                    Washington knew what the Constitution says. You obviously don't.
                    John Brown did nothing wrong.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Guynemer View Post
                      No, I think it was more about your use of the term "sand ******".

                      Just a guess, though.
                      This. Particularly since I am a northeastern transplant with no love of the south per se. Although one could say I've gone native with respect to food. Still the whole accent thing is something I have done my parental best to prevent showing up in my kids lingo.
                      Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe; March 29, 2012, 16:59.
                      "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                      “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dinner View Post
                        But even the right wing agrees some infringement is allowed. For instances criminals can be striped of their right to own guns as can mentally ill people so surely it's not that cut and dried.
                        And your right to free speech doesn't allow you to lie in a court of law. Freedoms have their limits, but those limits are minimized in a free society.
                        John Brown did nothing wrong.

                        Comment


                        • So now we both agree that some amount of regulation is allowed and we're just debating where that limit is.
                          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                          Comment


                          • No ****, Sherlock.
                            John Brown did nothing wrong.

                            Comment


                            • If you look at the arguments put forth during the original discussions concerning the writing of the Second Amendment over 215 years ago it appears that the original intent was truly to allow for the possiblity of armed resistance to the government. OTOH there was nothing said about the government not fighting back.
                              "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

                              Comment


                              • I wouldn't discount the ability of a sufficiently well-armed populace to overthrow the government. It happens every now and then. American citizens are the most heavily armed in the world, with 90 legal privately owned guns per 100 adults.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X