Wat's Guns-N-Stuff Thread

[coati]

They've been trying to morph 'militia' into 'national guard' for going on 60 years now.

...while the Deplorables have been trying to morph 'well regulated' into 'unregulated'.

The hyper-defensive gun-nut circle jerk continues.

 

[HisArpy]

You've been to Rory's house.

I see dead Hitlers!

Uhhh.... no.

*shudder*

 

[HisArpy]

...while the Deplorables have been trying to morph 'well regulated' into 'unregulated'.

The hyper-defensive gun-nut circle jerk continues.

As usual you fuck up because your understanding is flawed by false concepts.

For instance, well regulated doesn't have to mean formal training. Especially when the Militia Act requires the unregulated militia to appear with arms suitable for defense of the nation with which they've trained.

A requirement which also neatly defeats your "weapons of war don't belong in the hands of civilians" argument because the Militia Act mandates that we have those weapons.

 

[coati]

As usual you fuck up because your understanding is flawed by false concepts.

For instance, well regulated doesn't have to mean formal training. Especially when the Militia Act requires the unregulated militia to appear with arms suitable for defense of the nation with which they've trained.

Cite where the Militia Act, with its myriad of amendments that ultimately established the National Guard, still requires the "unregulated" militia to show up with military arms.

 

[LLCox]

More like, I get called Hangin' Johnny, but I ain't never hanged nobody.

"Well first I hanged my Mother..."

'Let me tell you about my Mother." ~ Leon Kowalski, Blade Runner

"My Mother was the coldest woman I ever met." ~

 

[Starfire6369]

Ever see the aftermath of 300Blkout in 5.56? Not so fun gun stuff. A moment of complacency while loading magazine

 

[Wat_Tyler]

"Well first I hanged my Mother..."

'Let me tell you about my Mother." ~ Leon Kowalski, Blade Runner

"My Mother was the coldest woman I ever met." ~

Dr. Tyler is quite the piece of work.


Then again, Wat is her spawn, so no one is surprised.

 

[HisArpy]

Cite where the Militia Act, with its myriad of amendments that ultimately established the National Guard, still requires the "unregulated" militia to show up with military arms.

Anyone else notice the attempt to move the goalposts?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Atta boy, you tell us how you're an expert at electing representatives while touting that the US is a Democracy instead of a Republic. Tell us how the Constitution which creates and limits the government you want to elect is outdated and thereby needs to be abolished. Tell us that the words in the dictionary don't really mean what the definitions say. Tell us that "teh science" proves that manipulated and altered data means that the planet is getting warmer. Tell us that Palestine is suffering under the terrorism of Israel.

Go on, tell us all of that and more. More things like "the Declaration of Independence hasn't ever been cited by the Courts as authority" even though it has. Tell us more things like the 2nd Amendment only applies to "teh Militia" even though cases from the early 1800's say otherwise. Tell us without actually telling us that you're an idiot who doesn't know his burro from a hole in the ground. (Which, in case you couldn't suss that out is called a "burrow.")

Then watch us laugh in your face.

Wait whut?
The Declaration of Independence has been cited as a (stuatory) authority by the "Court"?
I thought the Constitution was the Soopreme law of the land...Now you're telling me the Declaration is too?
Care to share exactly where?

It's also quite amusing to see HisArpy fuming that "We're a Republic, not a Democracy, DAMMIT!" I seem to recall that line was repeated over and over by Ohio Repubicans early this month, when voters overwhelming voted to modify the state constitution in DIRECT DEFIANCE of their White Republican legislature. I guess gerrymanderin' only goes do far!

 

[coati]

Anyone else notice the attempt to move the goalposts?

Yes, you simply can't find a citation for the language in your claims in post #2197, so you want to move the goalpost.

Maybe those claims are based on statutes in the Declaration of Independence? Or perhaps direct revelation from God?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Or perhaps direct revelation from God?

Crap, bringing God into this discussion will surely devolve into an argument over Baptisms. Should they be done with Carbon or non carbon based water!

 

[CuriousRick]

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, you simply can't find a citation for the language in your claims in post #2197, so you want to move the goalpost.

Maybe those claims are based on statutes in the Declaration of Independence? Or perhaps direct revelation from God?

It really isn't my fault you're a confused buffoon. You consistently misquote authority, insert lies in place of truths, and now make a confused remark regarding God and the Declaration of Independence as if you don't understand what "endowed by their creator" means.

You're a mess. It's no wonder you're melting down faster than a snowcone in an August heatwave.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Just because it isn't your fault doesn't mean that you won't get blamed anyway.

 

[HisArpy]

Just because it isn't your fault doesn't mean that you won't get blamed anyway.

My boss, Mr. Morningstar, understands exactly how that works.

 

[coati]

It really isn't my fault you're a confused buffoon. You consistently misquote authority, insert lies in place of truths, and now make a confused remark regarding God and the Declaration of Independence as if you don't understand what "endowed by their creator" means.

You're a mess. It's no wonder you're melting down faster than a snowcone in an August heatwave.

^^^Translation for those who are not Deplorables: This poster does not have any citations from the Militia Act to back up the bullshit he slung in post #2197 in this thread, so he personally attacks the person who requested a citation. Here's what he said in that post about the Militia Act mandating the gun-nuts to have military weapons:

"For instance, well regulated doesn't have to mean formal training. Especially when the Militia Act requires the unregulated militia to appear with arms suitable for defense of the nation with which they've trained.

A requirement which also neatly defeats your "weapons of war don't belong in the hands of civilians" argument because the Militia Act mandates that we have those weapons."

 

[Wat_Tyler]

My boss, Mr. Morningstar, understands exactly how that works.

Many bosses have that most annoying trait. And then there are those who break chips off in the dip and leave the shards there.


Wretched cunts the lot of them.

 

[CuttingEdge]

Cite where the Militia Act, with its myriad of amendments that ultimately established the National Guard, still requires the "unregulated" militia to show up with military arms.

Kind of beating a dead horse, because the US Supreme Court has made it clear that the militia part of the amendment, no matter how non-legal-beagles chose how THEY define the amendment, gives a person the right to arm themselves.

But to answer a pointless point, is an interesting legal wrangling. It has been proposed in case law that the police could be construed as "military", a proposal that has not fully worked its way through the courts yet. There is some legal basis for that definition. I am not fully convinced myself and would have to hear some legal arguments for and against the basis, but ASUMMING a police force is NOT considered a "militia", then most police departments require their police officers to carry firearms even when off duty when out in public.

But there are cities, towns and counties in this country where by LAW, a citizen has to carry firearms. I can think of Texas in this regard, but some other places require firearms being on a person because of bear attacks. While no one is required to live there, it does set up legal precedent that today, just as it was back in 1776, average citizens were/are REQUIRED to carry firearms.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

One thought on sawing off a semi-auto:


https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4f218edd79a5a5093351a45afd620253

 

[Chobham]

Kind of beating a dead horse, because the US Supreme Court has made it clear that the militia part of the amendment, no matter how non-legal-beagles chose how THEY define the amendment, gives a person the right to arm themselves.

But to answer a pointless point, is an interesting legal wrangling. It has been proposed in case law that the police could be construed as "military", a proposal that has not fully worked its way through the courts yet. There is some legal basis for that definition. I am not fully convinced myself and would have to hear some legal arguments for and against the basis, but ASUMMING a police force is NOT considered a "militia", then most police departments require their police officers to carry firearms even when off duty when out in public.

But there are cities, towns and counties in this country where by LAW, a citizen has to carry firearms. I can think of Texas in this regard, but some other places require firearms being on a person because of bear attacks. While no one is required to live there, it does set up legal precedent that today, just as it was back in 1776, average citizens were/are REQUIRED to carry firearms.

Back to "text and tradition" which obviates the "police force" argument.

 

[coati]

Kind of beating a dead horse, because the US Supreme Court has made it clear that the militia part of the amendment, no matter how non-legal-beagles chose how THEY define the amendment, gives a person the right to arm themselves.

Much as some would like to say it's a dead horse, it ain't. It's no more a dead horse at the Supreme Court as a Constitutuonal issue than slavery was at the inception of this nation or abortion was following Roe vs Wade.

Big issues affecting a lot of people have a way of coming up again and again at the Supreme Court.

 

[Chobham]

Much as some would like to say it's a dead horse, it ain't. It's no more a dead horse at the Supreme Court as a Constitutuonal issue than slavery was at the inception of this nation or abortion was following Roe vs Wade.

Big issues affecting a lot of people have a way of coming up again and again at the Supreme Court.

At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.

Slavery was not enshrined in the Constitution until the 13th amendment, abortion has never been mentioned in the Constitution. Apples and Oranges.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

But there are cities, towns and counties in this country where by LAW, a citizen has to carry firearms. I can think of Texas in this regard, but some other places require firearms being on a person because of bear attacks. While no one is required to live there, it does set up legal precedent that today, just as it was back in 1776, average citizens were/are REQUIRED to carry firearms.

Ok, if you're goning to make a claim,provide the proof. Where is the law stating citizens were REQUIRED to carry firearms. First lets not forget the price of an average musket in 1776 was about two months pay. The price of good pistol even more. Not to mention shot and powder. The Government placed that burden on it's people???

Here's an excerpt of some laws from around that era:

"Carry restriction laws were widely enacted, spanning the entire historicalperiod under examination. As early as 1686, New Jersey enacted a law againstwearing weapons because they induced “great Fear and Quarrels.”43Massachusetts followed in 1750.44 In the late 1700s, North Carolina45 andVirginia46 passed similar laws.47 In the 1800s, as interpersonal violence and guncarrying spread, thirty-eight states joined the list;48 five more did so in the early 1900's."

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp

Now just for context here, I am an owner of firearms, I don't believe in taking away all of everyone's "guns", but I also have a hard time with gun proponents who use bogus materials to support their point of view.

 

[coati]

Slavery was not enshrined in the Constitution until the 13th amendment, abortion has never been mentioned in the Constitution. Apples and Oranges.

I was responding to a poster who said it was a dead issue because the Supreme Court already settled it, which is like saying major policies and practices in the USA have never changed at the hands of that court.

This is not an issue of repealing the 2nd Amendment and taking all guns away from everyone. This is an issue of limiting who in general society can access the deadliest of rapid-fire military weapons.

 

[LLCox]