Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 68
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 68 template Next
  • #451
    Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

    Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
    What you've described is the firearm has been illegally modified to a full automatic.
    Yes. That's one scenario. It's also too easy using just a semi-auto or a couple of them to inflict massive damage on a lot of people. Anything with "auto" in the name has to go.
    **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

    Comment

    • #452
      Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

      Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
      Having lived in upstate NY for a period of time, and seeing what folks knew/understood about geography, that's eerily accurate.
      Except nobody in NYC can correctly place Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse relative to each other, and nobody has heard of Binghamton unless they've taken a train through it to get somewhere else.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment

      • #453
        Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
        Yes. That's one scenario. It's also too easy using just a semi-auto or a couple of them to inflict massive damage on a lot of people. Anything with "auto" in the name has to go.
        A semi-automatic under one trigger actuation fires a round and presents the next round for firing by the next full actuation of the trigger. (One trigger pull, one round.)

        Revolvers would be illegal as they are semi-automatic.

        dmx's trap shooting shotgun (depending on model) might be illegal under such rules.
        The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

        North Dakota Hockey:

        Comment

        • #454
          Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

          Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
          A semi-automatic under one trigger actuation fires a round and presents the next round for firing by the next full actuation of the trigger. (One trigger pull, one round.)

          Revolvers would be illegal as they are semi-automatic.

          dmx's trap shooting shotgun (depending on model) might be illegal under such rules.
          And round and round we go. Meanwhile the bodies just keep piling up.
          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

          Comment

          • #455
            Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
            The definition of the word at the time it was written matters. At that time the Minutemen (no, not UMass) were militia under their definition. Minutemen were independent civilians.

            Frankly, would the National Guard of today be viewed as a "standing army" (more than two year appropriations) by the framers is an equally debatable question.
            Right, they were independant civilians who signed up to participate in organized military practice. They were not paid professional military men (ie: Redcoats, modern US Military). It wasn't every citizen with a shed filled with guns and ammo pretending to be a hero either.

            I do agree with the argument on today's modern National Guard, but even though there are "career" National Guard members, they're not career in the same way US Military members are. Modern guardsmen still hold civilian jobs while also "employed" by the guard.
            “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

            Live Radio from 100.3

            Comment

            • #456
              Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

              Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
              The definition of the word at the time it was written matters. At that time the Minutemen (no, not UMass) were militia under their definition. Minutemen were independent civilians.

              Frankly, would the National Guard of today be viewed as a "standing army" (more than two year appropriations) by the framers is an equally debatable question.
              The definition of what word - "militia"? Even if that stands you can't ignore "well regulated" and there's nothing "well regulated" with regard to personal firearms ownership in this country.

              Comment

              • #457
                Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

                Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                (no, not UMass)
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrzi77-mnmg
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment

                • #458
                  Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

                  Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                  ... there's nothing "well regulated" with regard to personal firearms ownership in this country.
                  Could the Framers fathom a national system to which you must be verified before you purchase a firearm? Seems purchase (precursor to legal ownership) is "well regulated". To legally carry concealed in my State there are conditions and criteria to be met. Seems "well regulated".
                  Last edited by The Sicatoka; 05-13-2019, 11:31 AM.
                  The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                  North Dakota Hockey:

                  Comment

                  • #459
                    Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                    Could the Framers fathom a national system to which you must be verified before you purchase a firearm? Seems purchase (precursor to legal ownership) is "well regulated". To legally carry concealed in my State there are conditions and criteria to be met. Seems "well regulated".
                    Congratulations, your CCW is the handgun equivilant of a CDL endorsement for truck drivers.
                    “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

                    Live Radio from 100.3

                    Comment

                    • #460
                      Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

                      Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                      Could the Framers fathom a national system to which you must be verified before you purchase a firearm? Seems purchase (precursor to legal ownership) is "well regulated". To legally carry concealed in my State there are conditions and criteria to be met. Seems "well regulated".
                      The Framers were well aware they couldn't envision every future possibility and we will agree to disagree that the overall spectrum gun ownership governance is "well regulated". Both of which deflect from the full phrase, "well regulated militia". 2 parts - 1 whole.
                      Last edited by Slap Shot; 05-13-2019, 12:48 PM.

                      Comment

                      • #461
                        Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

                        Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                        The definition of the word at the time it was written matters. At that time the Minutemen (no, not UMass) were militia under their definition. Minutemen were independent civilians.

                        Frankly, would the National Guard of today be viewed as a "standing army" (more than two year appropriations) by the framers is an equally debatable question.
                        So does the point of what it mattered. Many of the founding fathers did NOT want a standing army, so the entire point of the 2nd was to be capable of raising a temporary army so that the newly formed US could defend itself.

                        After those founders changed their mind, the whole point of the 2nd amendment became moot- as it was not required to be able to muster an army out of our private citizens.

                        Yet now it remains, and we have weapons that our founders could not have even dreamed about, capable of murdering as many people as a magazine will hold as fast as you can pull a trigger that many times.

                        It's pretty darned funny that people like you twist the meaning of the words so much when there's no way in heck the development of weapons could have been envisioned. If we are going to be that literal, then you can have flint lock muzzle loaders.

                        Comment

                        • #462
                          Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

                          I guess I always assumed that amendments like the first amendment and second amendment weren't constructed for the granting of rights to citizens. Instead, they were drafted in such a way as to recognize a preexisting, underlying right, like the right to free speech or the right to own and possess a weapon. They were drafted not to grant or enumerate the right, but instead say, "these rights shall not be restricted by the government."

                          Prior to the Bill of Rights, prior to the Constitution, prior to even the war for independence, people had a right to bear arms. I don't think that was restricted to their involvement with the militia. They used guns for hunting and for protection. But it was a basic right that people had that the framers of the bill of rights thought was important enough to protect.
                          That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                          Comment

                          • #463
                            Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

                            Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                            I guess I always assumed that amendments like the first amendment and second amendment weren't constructed for the granting of rights to citizens. Instead, they were drafted in such a way as to recognize a preexisting, underlying right, like the right to free speech or the right to own and possess a weapon. They were drafted not to grant or enumerate the right, but instead say, "these rights shall not be restricted by the government."

                            Prior to the Bill of Rights, prior to the Constitution, prior to even the war for independence, people had a right to bear arms. I don't think that was restricted to their involvement with the militia. They used guns for hunting and for protection. But it was a basic right that people had that the framers of the bill of rights thought was important enough to protect.
                            Prior to the Bill of Rights, English Common Law and colonial practice recognized gun control measures.

                            Your understanding of the Bill of Rights is quite correct: it delineates where the government may interfere with personal liberty. It is a declaration of the restrictions on liberty, not a statement of those liberties. Liberties not mentioned, most importantly the right of privacy, are implied by their omission.

                            Your understanding of the right to bear arms in the Founders' period is quite incorrect and was manufactured by the gun lobby to boost their sales at the cost of human life. It's not your fault; it's just ignorance.
                            Last edited by Kepler; 05-13-2019, 02:20 PM.
                            Cornell University
                            National Champion 1967, 1970
                            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                            Comment

                            • #464
                              Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

                              The second amendment wasn't an issue in the middle 1800's when frontier towns would make you check you weapons in before entering town.
                              “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

                              Live Radio from 100.3

                              Comment

                              • #465
                                Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

                                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                                Prior to the Bill of Rights, English Common Law and colonial practice recognized gun control measures.

                                Your understanding of the Bill of Rights is quite correct: it delineates where the government may interfere with personal liberty. It is a declaration of the restrictions on liberty, not a statement of those liberties. Liberties not mentioned, most importantly the right of privacy, are implied by their omission.

                                Your understanding of the right to bear arms in the Founders' period is quite incorrect and was manufactured by the gun lobby to boost their sales at the cost of human life. It's not your fault; it's just ignorance.
                                Well, what is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" that they wrote about in the second amendment then? It has to be something, don't you agree. Is that right enumerated anywhere else?
                                That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 68 template Next
                                Working...
                                X