Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Hotplant

Random Thoughts v.3

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

Thanks. I realize there is an opposing viewpoint -- that the right does not exist outside of a well-regulated militia -- but the Supreme Court of the United States has already decided what I expressed above is correct insofar as  it is what the Founding Fathers meant and intended. 

You are right insofar as SCOTUS has made that ruling, however regardless of what SCOTUS claimed, that was not the intent of James Madison who wrote the second amendment and commented on its meaning at length in the Federalist Papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

You are right insofar as SCOTUS has made that ruling, however regardless of what SCOTUS claimed, that was not the intent of James Madison who wrote the second amendment and commented on its meaning at length in the Federalist Papers.

There's IPMan to mention James Madison and the Federalist papers. Fair enough... 

Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia.  The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders.  Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment.  States do not have rights.  They have powers.  Individuals have rights.  In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SteveAJones said:

Thanks. I realize there is an opposing viewpoint -- that the right does not exist outside of a well-regulated militia -- but the Supreme Court of the United States has already decided what I expressed above is correct insofar as  it is what the Founding Fathers meant and intended. 

Thats good to know Steve - I always thought the "well regulated Militia" should make a lot of the pro-gun positions redundant. Now I know better. What is still of interest is what limits can be applied? Where can Government draw the line? (not should - but can) Is regulation/restriction a function of each state - according to the will of that states electorate?

 

I should read entire threads before commenting,. LOL....

Edited by rm2551

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Stryder1978 said:

Holy crap....Led Zeppelin, Alice Cooper, Black Sabbath....AND JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR???  That could well be one of the greatest time periods in the history of entertainment!

I know. An amazing era. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Thats good to know Steve - I always thought the "well regulated Militia" should make a lot of the pro-gun positions redundant. Now I know better. What is still of interest is what limits can be applied? Where can Government draw the line? (not should - but can) Is regulation/restriction a function of each state - according to the will of that states electorate?

I should read entire threads before commenting,. LOL....

Where the line can be drawn with regard to "shall not be infringed" is very much open to interpretation. For example, in my personal opinion the Second Amendment IS my concealed carry permit. Of course, the law does not support that interpretation. Regulation/restriction is for the most part a matter of state law, but of course there are some federal laws that apply. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

There's IPMan to mention James Madison and the Federalist papers. Fair enough... 

Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia.  The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders.  Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment.  States do not have rights.  They have powers.  Individuals have rights.  In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.

Actually, you have Madison's intent backward. The amendment addresses slave revolts which were of a major concern at the time. The well regulated militia was less for defense against foreign invaders and 100% defense against slaves deciding they were no longer some asshole's property. You see, in the 18th century there was no prohibition against personal ownership of weapons anywhere in the world outside of Japan. As far as the Founders of this nation were concerned, the concept of enshrining personal gun ownership in the constitution would not even have come up as it was a given almost everywhere. You see, most governments in the 18th century had enough intelligence to know personal ownership of weapons was of no threat to the state, nor ever would be. Washington himself proved this point in the extreme during the Whiskey Rebellion. England under the Stuarts tried to partially disarm the citizenry in 1689 (to curtail and control hunting) and they lost the crown as a result. European society at large viewed the personal possession of weapons as not only inalienable as a right, but necessary for the security of the nation as a whole (European countries utilized the militia system for centuries for several purposes).

In affect, arguing the Founders intended to protect personal ownership of weapons was as alien a concept as womens' suffrage was or civil rights were. You simply cannot go back and re-write history based on 21st century concerns. After all, if the Founders held the contemporary interpretation, all of those towns and cities back in the 19th century and earlier would not have prohibited ANY guns within city limits, yet they sure did. Not just handguns, ALL guns. Gee, you would think SCOTUS would have had a bit of a problem with that back then but, no.

The fact is, if personal, unlimited gun ownership represented the majority opinion in the US, the politicians would simply amend the constitution and clean up the 2nd amendment to reflect current public opinions and concerns. However as 8% of the United States population does not hold this opinion (unregulated private ownership of guns), they will leave that alone as it currently serves their intended purpose, facts be damned.

I personally believe in the personal ownership of guns however I do believe that ownership should have common sense regulation. I don't want to see some middle-aged fat ass strapped at my local Piggly Wiggly any more than I want to see the same guy with a dildo strapped to his head. There is no reason to go strapped in society, this is not Mad Max.

Edited by PeaceFrogYum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

The fact is, if personal, unlimited gun ownership represented the majority opinion in the US, the politicians would simply amend the constitution and clean up the 2nd amendment to reflect current public opinions and concerns.

The fact is personal, unlimited gun ownership is the majority opinion in the US and more importantly the SCOTUS, which is why the leftist gun grabbers don't press their luck by pushing for an amendment. As to slave rebellions, that's an interesting theory but given there were only two significant uprisings in the nations history at the time the Bill of Rights was written it seems a stretch to suggest they were the motivation for it's inclusion. Conventional wisdom holds that it was to retain the capacity to overthrow a tyrannical government, which seems obvious. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveAJones said:

The fact is personal, unlimited gun ownership is the majority opinion in the US and more importantly the SCOTUS, which is why the leftist gun grabbers don't press their luck by pushing for an amendment. As to slave rebellions, that's an interesting theory but given there were only two significant uprisings in the nations history at the time the Bill of Rights was written it seems a stretch to suggest they were the motivation for it's inclusion. Conventional wisdom holds that it was to retain the capacity to overthrow a tyrannical government, which seems obvious. 

 

Sorry, but no: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/gun-control-polling-parkland-430099

The fear of slave uprisings was a very, very serious threat during the 18th century as proto-Americans were witness to two serious uprisings, the Stono & New York rebellions. However, slave rebellions in the Caribbean, South America, and the Jamaican Rebellion (Tacky's War) is what really made them shit.

Lastly, you cannot make such a claim as your last sentence in light of the Whiskey Rebellion, nor from prior historical reference contemporary to the Founders as such an event had never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

Sorry, but no: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/gun-control-polling-parkland-430099

The fear of slave uprisings was a very, very serious threat during the 18th century as proto-Americans were witness to two serious uprisings, the Stono & New York rebellions. However, slave rebellions in the Caribbean, South America, and the Jamaican Rebellion (Tacky's War) is what really made them shit.

Lastly, you cannot make such a claim as your last sentence in light of the Whiskey Rebellion, nor from prior historical reference contemporary to the Founders as such an event had never happened.

You have correctly discerned the two uprisings I was alluding to, and on second thought if you are stating one purpose of the Second Amendment was to reassure some states that the federal government would not abolish their citizen militias, which they needed to control slaves, Indians and attacks by foreigners then we are in agreement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From:

The Russians Are Coming The Russians Are Coming

image.png.cb6144d84646dbe6b296f3a7637e8f99.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with this modern thing with blokes soon to become a parent saying "We're pregnant" or "We're having a baby". Well you're not, it's your wife/partner that's pregnant and having the baby not you. None of my mates would have made such a snowflake comment, most you'd hear was thing's like "Wife's (or girlfriend) up the spout/duff", "I'm going to be a dad (again)"  maybe "Wife's pregnant again" etc.  I've got one mate who announces "Wife's pupped (again)".   "We're pregnant !!!!", "Fer fecks sake", go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2019 at 5:09 PM, PeaceFrogYum said:

  There is no reason to go strapped in society, this is not Mad Max.

I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, redrum said:

I disagree.

You disagree because you believe we live in a dystopian hellscape or because you just like the feel of cold steel while you purchase strawberries at your local co-op?

Just an FYI, whenever I see some dude strapped in public I just cannot help myself. I just shake my head that someone could be both so paranoid and so scared in modern society. What I find even more strange is the fact that gun laws are considerably more lax then they were in the 18th, 19th, or even 20th centuries yet violent crime and crime in general is at an all time low. It's kinda like some 105 year old man walking around with a condom in his wallet even though the last time he made whooppiee was when Kennedy was President. Except a condom cannot kill you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

You disagree because you believe we live in a dystopian hellscape or because you just like the feel of cold steel while you purchase strawberries at your local co-op?

Just an FYI, whenever I see some dude strapped in public I just cannot help myself. I just shake my head that someone could be both so paranoid and so scared in modern society. What I find even more strange is the fact that gun laws are considerably more lax then they were in the 18th, 19th, or even 20th centuries yet violent crime and crime in general is at an all time low. It's kinda like some 105 year old man walking around with a condom in his wallet even though the last time he made whooppiee was when Kennedy was President. Except a condom cannot kill you.

:thumbsup: 

Agree on many levels, and I have a concealed weapons permit.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

You disagree because you believe we live in a dystopian hellscape or because you just like the feel of cold steel while you purchase strawberries at your local co-op?

Just an FYI, whenever I see some dude strapped in public I just cannot help myself. I just shake my head that someone could be both so paranoid and so scared in modern society. What I find even more strange is the fact that gun laws are considerably more lax then they were in the 18th, 19th, or even 20th centuries yet violent crime and crime in general is at an all time low. It's kinda like some 105 year old man walking around with a condom in his wallet even though the last time he made whooppiee was when Kennedy was President. Except a condom cannot kill you.

Actually, I carry a small, cased .22 magnum in my pocket. I've seen a few people carrying a holstered pistol and it makes me feel good when I see that. I would never do it myself because I don't want to advertise. I remember a gas station in San Jose, CA back in the 70's where the guys who worked there to pump gas all had holstered weapons. I thought it was pretty cool and hopefully it would deter any thugs with evil thoughts. I believe your stats about crime being 'down', but it sure as hell isn't completely down. Let's be realistic here, bub. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, redrum said:

Let's be realistic here, bub.

Well lets. What is it for realistically? (carrying in public)

protection? Surely the odds of violent crime being directed at you in a situation where you have time to draw, un-safety, and prepare to defend are so low as to make that reasoning all but nonsense. I'm approaching 50 and I've lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods (nothing near the worst parts of town, but fairly rough) and I don't recall ever seeing anything close to requiring an armed response. ever.

If violent crime in your area does require serious consideration, far out mate, move!!!

Remember, you might stop a violent crime with your gun, apprehend some mofo, then the cops show up and you become another "under the circumstances, the officers felt they were in imminent danger and the fellow with the gun was shot. We stand by our officers actions..." story in the paper.

Then there is the possibility you are targeted for your weapon (theft of it).

Good luck to you guys wanting to carry. But seriously, why? (not being a smart ass - I just can't see a good reason)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Well lets. What is it for realistically? (carrying in public)

protection? Surely the odds of violent crime being directed at you in a situation where you have time to draw, un-safety, and prepare to defend are so low as to make that reasoning all but nonsense. I'm approaching 50 and I've lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods (nothing near the worst parts of town, but fairly rough) and I don't recall ever seeing anything close to requiring an armed response. ever.

If violent crime in your area does require serious consideration, far out mate, move!!!

Remember, you might stop a violent crime with your gun, apprehend some mofo, then the cops show up and you become another "under the circumstances, the officers felt they were in imminent danger and the fellow with the gun was shot. We stand by our officers actions..." story in the paper.

Then there is the possibility you are targeted for your weapon (theft of it).

Good luck to you guys wanting to carry. But seriously, why? (not being a smart ass - I just can't see a good reason)

I don't get it either, then I'm not an American. So glad we are gun free (apart from a "FEW" cops and crims) here in good old Blighty.

Edited by JTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been arguing about guns since the mid 70's. It's like banging your head against the wall. Don't tell me. Tell the gangs about it. I'm sure they'll be more than willing to listen to the 'common sense' argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Well lets. What is it for realistically? (carrying in public)

protection? Surely the odds of violent crime being directed at you in a situation where you have time to draw, un-safety, and prepare to defend are so low as to make that reasoning all but nonsense. I'm approaching 50 and I've lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods (nothing near the worst parts of town, but fairly rough) and I don't recall ever seeing anything close to requiring an armed response. ever.

If violent crime in your area does require serious consideration, far out mate, move!!!

Remember, you might stop a violent crime with your gun, apprehend some mofo, then the cops show up and you become another "under the circumstances, the officers felt they were in imminent danger and the fellow with the gun was shot. We stand by our officers actions..." story in the paper.

Then there is the possibility you are targeted for your weapon (theft of it).

Good luck to you guys wanting to carry. But seriously, why? (not being a smart ass - I just can't see a good reason)

Just stop? You guys live on an island in the middle of fucking nowhere with a relatively racially homogenous population. Consequently, there's nothing more tedious than Americans trying to explain firearms possession to Aussies.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Just stop? You guys live on an island in the middle of fucking nowhere with a relatively racially homogenous population. Consequently, there's nothing more tedious than Americans trying to explain firearms possession to Aussies.   

😄 45 years of tedium for me. 😄

Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)
I was five and he was six
We rode on horses made of sticks
He wore black and I wore white
He would always win the fight
 
Bang bang, he shot me down
Bang bang, I hit the ground
Bang bang, that awful sound
Bang bang, my baby shot me down
 
Seasons came and changed the time
When I grew up, I called him mine
He would always laugh and say
"Remember when we used to play?"
 
Bang bang, I shot you down
Bang bang, you hit the ground
Bang bang, that awful sound
Bang bang, I used to shoot you down
 
Music played and people sang
Just for me the church bells rang
Now he's gone, I don't know why
And 'till this day, sometimes I cry
He didn't even say goodbye
He didn't take the time to lie
 
Bang bang, he shot me down
Bang bang, I hit the ground
Bang bang, that awful sound
Bang bang, my baby shot me down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

there's nothing more tedious than Americans trying to explain firearms possession to Aussies.

Calm down, I did not ask for an explanation of firearms possession. I have read your various opinions and the facts you have previously posted and they are of interest. It is a legitimate and quite narrow question. I'm not questioning gun rights or anything to do with the virtues of gun laws. I just don't get why you would want to walk around strapped. For what end??? That was all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Calm down, I did not ask for an explanation of firearms possession. I have read your various opinions and the facts you have previously posted and they are of interest. It is a legitimate and quite narrow question. I'm not questioning gun rights or anything to do with the virtues of gun laws. I just don't get why you would want to walk around strapped. For what end??? That was all.

You don't think a criminal or some nut job who wants to take out as many people as they can would have second thoughts about committing their crime if they saw someone armed in the area?  Why do you think those mass murderers always choose schools or government buildings to commit their acts - they know the people are inside a "gun-free" zone! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Calm down, I did not ask for an explanation of firearms possession. I have read your various opinions and the facts you have previously posted and they are of interest. It is a legitimate and quite narrow question. I'm not questioning gun rights or anything to do with the virtues of gun laws. I just don't get why you would want to walk around strapped. For what end??? That was all.

Well, the thing about the US is it has a population of about 330 million, 329 million of which are in varies degrees of mental illness and/or drug dependency. So I would walk around strapped because if I encountered someone seeking to give me a problem I put two in their chest, one in their head, then I go back to my hotel and sleep like a baby.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. So it is your fear of violent crime happening to you or mass shooting happening in your vicinity. At any moment you might be subjected to violence. You might need to shoot someone who attacks you.

I don't think I would be vastly different than you guys in terms of the risk of being mugged/assaulted for some stupid reason (road rage, kids trying to rob me, etc.) but I don't give it much thought. The likelihood of that happening is really low. To take the leap to carrying around a deadly weapon to mitigate that perceived risk is astounding. For one it introduces other risks. But ok, that's your position.

Good luck with that guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a figure of speech, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Fear has little to nothing to do with it. I'm a realist, and while I realize the odds are low I also realize I would never want to be on the wrong side of any given encounter. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...