|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 8, 2019 10:02:14 GMT -8
The Federalist papers written by Madison and Hamilton made it clear that the "well regulated Militia" referred to the people and their individual right to have weapons. The Federalist Papers assert that local militias (as opposed to a "regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country") EXIST AS A FORMIDABLE CHECK ON FEDERAL POWER. In Federalist 46, Madison writes of the local militia versus a national military: It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. [Federalist 46] Bearing arms is "the right of the people" who would make up a state militia, which protects us from national tyranny (even if Madison was overly generous in describing the efficacy of militiamen during the Revolutionary War). In Federalist 29, published 228 years ago, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton concurs as to why militias are necessary: If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29] People need firearms proficiency to defend against young soldiers of a standing army who might be, in Madison's words, "rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power." Hamilton also elaborates on ideas that would later lead to the Second Amendment, and particularly the notion of a well-regulated militia. He is unambiguous in Federalist 29 on the point that people have a right to their weapons, and that they need not attend formal military training to be part of a militia, which would be "as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."
By definition, then, a "well-regulated militia" would no longer seem to include the National Guard, which does require formal and sustained military training by the regular Army. At any rate, in its present incarnation, the Guard — as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan — is a "state" force in name only. In practice, it is a part-time Army Reserve: a national army that happens also to be used for natural disasters in home states. Hamilton writes further of the requirements of militia members: Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Federalist 29] Based on the above it is clear that the people who actually drafted the Second Amendment were referring to the people owning guns as a final line of defense against the Federal government or other army. An argument can be made that the discussion of them assembling once or twice a year would mean some kind of organized training. I would not be opposed to a requirement that if you purchase a assault weapon that it would require training at a professional gun range (not necessarily run by the State). At your own admission, regular weapons care, safety and readiness should be requirement for all gun owners at least once per year. That would befit the definition of a well-regulated militia. I would be more than happy with a requirement that all firearm owners attend a mandatory safety course annually and are required to have at least 20 hours of documented range time annually. Those steps must then be combined with reasonable punishments for failing to meet those requirements. The issue then becomes, however, how is this information tracked and audited for accuracy? Who gets to store that information? Unless you establish a firearms registry there is no way to ensure every gun owner meets the requirement of a well-regulated militia (which leads into the slippery slope argument about establishing a firearm registry). It was a lot easier 230 years ago when (and I am doing a bit of generalizing here) white male = gun owner and not white male = not gun owner. TRO I attended a firearms training school when I was 8 years old and pretty much use the same fundamentals today 60 years later. I'll pass on the thought of a yearly safety course for gun owners in my position. What are we, 5 year olds? |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 8, 2019 10:11:54 GMT -8
At your own admission, regular weapons care, safety and readiness should be requirement for all gun owners at least once per year. That would befit the definition of a well-regulated militia. I would be more than happy with a requirement that all firearm owners attend a mandatory safety course annually and are required to have at least 20 hours of documented range time annually. Those steps must then be combined with reasonable punishments for failing to meet those requirements. The issue then becomes, however, how is this information tracked and audited for accuracy? Who gets to store that information? Unless you establish a firearms registry there is no way to ensure every gun owner meets the requirement of a well-regulated militia (which leads into the slippery slope argument about establishing a firearm registry). It was a lot easier 230 years ago when (and I am doing a bit of generalizing here) white male = gun owner and not white male = not gun owner. TRO I attended a firearms training school when I was 8 years old and pretty much use the same fundamentals today 60 years later. I'll pass on the thought of a yearly safety course for gun owners in my position. What are we, 5 year olds? I am against mandatory annual training. I don’t have an issue with a one time training regarding use, maintenance and applicable laws. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 8, 2019 10:22:12 GMT -8
How about annual driver training for people over 75? We had to turn my own father into the DMV as there is no way he would give up his license when Altz hit him.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 10:28:28 GMT -8
The Federalist papers written by Madison and Hamilton made it clear that the "well regulated Militia" referred to the people and their individual right to have weapons. The Federalist Papers assert that local militias (as opposed to a "regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country") EXIST AS A FORMIDABLE CHECK ON FEDERAL POWER. In Federalist 46, Madison writes of the local militia versus a national military: It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. [Federalist 46] Bearing arms is "the right of the people" who would make up a state militia, which protects us from national tyranny (even if Madison was overly generous in describing the efficacy of militiamen during the Revolutionary War). In Federalist 29, published 228 years ago, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton concurs as to why militias are necessary: If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29] People need firearms proficiency to defend against young soldiers of a standing army who might be, in Madison's words, "rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power." Hamilton also elaborates on ideas that would later lead to the Second Amendment, and particularly the notion of a well-regulated militia. He is unambiguous in Federalist 29 on the point that people have a right to their weapons, and that they need not attend formal military training to be part of a militia, which would be "as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."
By definition, then, a "well-regulated militia" would no longer seem to include the National Guard, which does require formal and sustained military training by the regular Army. At any rate, in its present incarnation, the Guard — as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan — is a "state" force in name only. In practice, it is a part-time Army Reserve: a national army that happens also to be used for natural disasters in home states. Hamilton writes further of the requirements of militia members: Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Federalist 29] Based on the above it is clear that the people who actually drafted the Second Amendment were referring to the people owning guns as a final line of defense against the Federal government or other army. An argument can be made that the discussion of them assembling once or twice a year would mean some kind of organized training. I would not be opposed to a requirement that if you purchase a assault weapon that it would require training at a professional gun range (not necessarily run by the State). At your own admission, regular weapons care, safety and readiness should be requirement for all gun owners at least once per year. That would befit the definition of a well-regulated militia. I would be more than happy with a requirement that all firearm owners attend a mandatory safety course annually and are required to have at least 20 hours of documented range time annually. Those steps must then be combined with reasonable punishments for failing to meet those requirements. The issue then becomes, however, how is this information tracked and audited for accuracy? Who gets to store that information? Unless you establish a firearms registry there is no way to ensure every gun owner meets the requirement of a well-regulated militia (which leads into the slippery slope argument about establishing a firearm registry). It was a lot easier 230 years ago when (and I am doing a bit of generalizing here) white male = gun owner and not white male = not gun owner. TRO I would agree that mandatory safety course annually and a range time requirement could be required. I would have no issue with a requirement that prior to purchasing an assault weapon type of firearm that a gun safety class and gun range training be required. Another possibility would be for the gun range master to be able to certify people as being a person who is well aware and follows gun safety thereby negating the need for annual gun safety classes but the range certification would be a requirement. Most gun owners go to the range anyways. However, there is a question about people who live in remote areas where gun ranges aren't readily available and they can simply set up a shooting range on their property. I am sure something could be worked out so that it doesn't become an economic burden on people. After all, people living in remote areas need firearms to protect themselves probably more than urban residents. If the County Sheriff takes 20 minutes to get to you then you better be able to handle your own business. One thing I would also want to avoid is dealing with anti-gun state and/or local governments who would simply refuse to allow any gun ranges or safety courses be held in their jurisdiction as an end around to get gun control in place. I could easily see politicians basically saying "Gee, too bad you can't meet the qualifications so you can't have a gun in our city/state." when the only reason they can't meet the qualifications is interference by the politicians. The gun registry is a far stickier situation. California has basically already implemented something along those lines by forcing you to register to purchase ammunition and it is a shit show. They didn't do anything to ensure the process would actually work and the system has been overwhelmed to where people who had already been deemed qualified to purchase a firearm in California under their system still aren't getting approval to purchase ammo. I won't be surprised when the California system is ruled in violation of the Second Amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 10:29:26 GMT -8
At your own admission, regular weapons care, safety and readiness should be requirement for all gun owners at least once per year. That would befit the definition of a well-regulated militia. I would be more than happy with a requirement that all firearm owners attend a mandatory safety course annually and are required to have at least 20 hours of documented range time annually. Those steps must then be combined with reasonable punishments for failing to meet those requirements. The issue then becomes, however, how is this information tracked and audited for accuracy? Who gets to store that information? Unless you establish a firearms registry there is no way to ensure every gun owner meets the requirement of a well-regulated militia (which leads into the slippery slope argument about establishing a firearm registry). It was a lot easier 230 years ago when (and I am doing a bit of generalizing here) white male = gun owner and not white male = not gun owner. TRO I attended a firearms training school when I was 8 years old and pretty much use the same fundamentals today 60 years later. I'll pass on the thought of a yearly safety course for gun owners in my position. What are we, 5 year olds? How about being able to show a certain amount of range time? |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 10:32:12 GMT -8
How about annual driver training for people over 75? We had to turn my own father into the DMV as there is no way he would give up his license when Altz hit him. My great grandmother was still driving into her 80's until my CHP father followed her one day. He said she was driving down the middle of a 2 lane street and blew through 2 stop signs. She never drove again. She actually lived to be 104. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 10:33:46 GMT -8
Read this thread.
A military pilot from El Paso was shot down and killed in Vietnam. His 5 year old son went to the airport to say goodbye. They just located and identified his remains recently and his remains were being flown back to El Paso. The pilot of the plane bringing back his remains was his son.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 8, 2019 10:34:50 GMT -8
I attended a firearms training school when I was 8 years old and pretty much use the same fundamentals today 60 years later. I'll pass on the thought of a yearly safety course for gun owners in my position. What are we, 5 year olds? How about being able to show a certain amount of range time? I haven't been to a gun range the last ten years. Why make it a requirement if people aren't interested in going there. If they do make it part of the red flag laws I'll be more than happy to invest in a few of them. What a cash cow that would be |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 8, 2019 10:39:49 GMT -8
Read this thread. A military pilot from El Paso was shot down and killed in Vietnam. His 5 year old son went to the airport to say goodbye. They just located and identified his remains recently and his remains were being flown back to El Paso. The pilot of the plane bringing back his remains was his son. My Cousin works on the American Airlines ground crew at DFW. They have an honor guard comprised of employees that always welcome home deceased members of the military |
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on Aug 8, 2019 11:49:02 GMT -8
You are getting to CBF level of argument. When I start to see a guy walking down the street with a 16 inch battleship gun then you have a comparison. It's the same ridiculous argument as "Why not nuclear weapons then?" Wasn't to be taken so literally. The point was more about the vast degree of firearms/weapons today and what gets to be considered 'arms' in relation to the 2nd amendment; who gets to decide? 2nd amendment was written back when concepts of 'arms' were muskets, very basic rifles and such. Along comes AR-15 invention and americans automatically get to obtain a killing machine tucked under the 2nd amendment? How did that happen? The AR-15 has been sold to 19 year olds since 1960's. Hell, it was even in the Sears and Roebuck catalog. "Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society." Your opinion is not a fact and certainly not the law. It is one thing to say from this point forward the sale of AR-15's and the like is forbidden. It is quite another, and legally and historically unprecedented in this country, for the Government to say something legally sold is now illegal to own and we are going to come take it from you. Any attempt to do so would be immediately thrown out of Court under the Second Amendment. You know, the whole "Shall not be infringed" thing? What practical purpose does an AR-15 and similar designs have in American civilian society? You can't hunt with them. Take it to the range and destroy watermelons or a sheet of plywood? If you ask me, they're just self indulgent 'toys' for a relatively very small number of gun enthusiasts. I could very easily live with a full ban. You could too. All gun geeks need to do is shed their biased paranoias. Yes, ban them! |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 8, 2019 11:50:59 GMT -8
Hey entertainment industry, please continue:
Tommy Lee has rankled conservatives by sharing a strong, anti-Trump political message on social media.
The Mötley Crüe drummer posted a long quote — traced back at least a year back and written by an unknown author — to his social media platforms on Wednesday. It started with, “You Trumpsters better pray that liberals never gain control of the [White House] again because we are going to pay you back so f***king hard for all this sh**.”
It went on to list all the changes liberals would potentially make: “Planned Parenthoods on every damn corner,” repaint Air Force One “p***y hat pink and fly it over your beloved Bible Belt 6 days a week, tossing birth control pills, condoms & atheist literature from the cockpit.”
The post went on to promise to “take your mega churches so bad” that Joel Osteen will “need to get a job at Chick-fil-A to pay his light bill.”
As for Chick-fil-A, those will all be given to “any LGBTQ person your sick cult leaders tortured with conversion therapy. Have fun with the new menu you bigoted f**ks,” listing one item as the “McPence,” with a remark about being “in the closet.”
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 8, 2019 11:52:59 GMT -8
You are getting to CBF level of argument. When I start to see a guy walking down the street with a 16 inch battleship gun then you have a comparison. It's the same ridiculous argument as "Why not nuclear weapons then?" Wasn't to be taken so literally. The point was more about the vast degree of firearms/weapons today and what gets to be considered 'arms' in relation to the 2nd amendment; who gets to decide? 2nd amendment was written back when concepts of 'arms' were muskets, very basic rifles and such. Along comes AR-15 invention and americans automatically get to obtain a killing machine tucked under the 2nd amendment? How did that happen? The AR-15 has been sold to 19 year olds since 1960's. Hell, it was even in the Sears and Roebuck catalog. "Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society." Your opinion is not a fact and certainly not the law. It is one thing to say from this point forward the sale of AR-15's and the like is forbidden. It is quite another, and legally and historically unprecedented in this country, for the Government to say something legally sold is now illegal to own and we are going to come take it from you. Any attempt to do so would be immediately thrown out of Court under the Second Amendment. You know, the whole "Shall not be infringed" thing? What practical purpose does an AR-15 and similar designs have in American civilian society? You can't hunt with them. Take it to the range and destroy watermelons or a sheet of plywood? If you ask me, they're just self indulgent 'toys' for a relatively very small number of gun enthusiasts. I could very easily live with a full ban. You could too. All gun geeks need to do is shed their biased paranoias. Yes, ban them!We could all live with many things including a ban on private property ownership. Ferrari is a self indulgent toy for the very few. Shall we ban this brand? |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 12:16:48 GMT -8
You are getting to CBF level of argument. When I start to see a guy walking down the street with a 16 inch battleship gun then you have a comparison. It's the same ridiculous argument as "Why not nuclear weapons then?" Wasn't to be taken so literally. The point was more about the vast degree of firearms/weapons today and what gets to be considered 'arms' in relation to the 2nd amendment; who gets to decide? 2nd amendment was written back when concepts of 'arms' were muskets, very basic rifles and such. Along comes AR-15 invention and americans automatically get to obtain a killing machine tucked under the 2nd amendment? How did that happen? The AR-15 has been sold to 19 year olds since 1960's. Hell, it was even in the Sears and Roebuck catalog. "Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society." Your opinion is not a fact and certainly not the law. It is one thing to say from this point forward the sale of AR-15's and the like is forbidden. It is quite another, and legally and historically unprecedented in this country, for the Government to say something legally sold is now illegal to own and we are going to come take it from you. Any attempt to do so would be immediately thrown out of Court under the Second Amendment. You know, the whole "Shall not be infringed" thing? What practical purpose does an AR-15 and similar designs have in American civilian society? You can't hunt with them. Take it to the range and destroy watermelons or a sheet of plywood? If you ask me, they're just self indulgent 'toys' for a relatively very small number of gun enthusiasts. I could very easily live with a full ban. You could too. All gun geeks need to do is shed their biased paranoias. Yes, ban them!The Second Amendment wasn't implemented to protect hunting. See my post with quotes from the Federalist papers. A relatively small number of gun enthusiasts? The last estimate I saw is that there are 16,000,000 AR-15's owned in America. It is considered the most popular rifle in the U.S. 16,000,000 of them. 99.99% of which have never actually shot a person. The number of U.S. homicide deaths by AR-15 is a fraction of a percent of annual deaths. Contrary to your claims they are actually used for hunting with them because they are light weight and have low recoil. The AR-15 can actually be configured for numerous different calibers. The government may decide to stop any further sales of them (which will result in a rush to the gun stores to buy them before they are illegal as happens every time people start rumbling about gun control) but there is simply no way under the Constitution for the Federal Government to force people to give up a legally owned and purchased rifle. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 12:18:49 GMT -8
Hey entertainment industry, please continue: Tommy Lee has rankled conservatives by sharing a strong, anti-Trump political message on social media. The Mötley Crüe drummer posted a long quote — traced back at least a year back and written by an unknown author — to his social media platforms on Wednesday. It started with, “You Trumpsters better pray that liberals never gain control of the [White House] again because we are going to pay you back so f***king hard for all this sh**.” It went on to list all the changes liberals would potentially make: “Planned Parenthoods on every damn corner,” repaint Air Force One “p***y hat pink and fly it over your beloved Bible Belt 6 days a week, tossing birth control pills, condoms & atheist literature from the cockpit.” The post went on to promise to “take your mega churches so bad” that Joel Osteen will “need to get a job at Chick-fil-A to pay his light bill.” As for Chick-fil-A, those will all be given to “any LGBTQ person your sick cult leaders tortured with conversion therapy. Have fun with the new menu you bigoted f**ks,” listing one item as the “McPence,” with a remark about being “in the closet.” I saw the same stream of posts from another leftist. They are off the hinges either delusional or stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 12:23:55 GMT -8
We could all live with many things including a ban on private property ownership. Ferrari is a self indulgent toy for the very few. Shall we ban this brand? We can also live in a Country where the minority's rights are protected against the mob rule majority. Does he realize that the Constitution wasn't written to show what rights people have but as a control on the Federal Government? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 12:52:48 GMT -8
At your own admission, regular weapons care, safety and readiness should be requirement for all gun owners at least once per year. That would befit the definition of a well-regulated militia. I would be more than happy with a requirement that all firearm owners attend a mandatory safety course annually and are required to have at least 20 hours of documented range time annually. Those steps must then be combined with reasonable punishments for failing to meet those requirements. The issue then becomes, however, how is this information tracked and audited for accuracy? Who gets to store that information? Unless you establish a firearms registry there is no way to ensure every gun owner meets the requirement of a well-regulated militia (which leads into the slippery slope argument about establishing a firearm registry). It was a lot easier 230 years ago when (and I am doing a bit of generalizing here) white male = gun owner and not white male = not gun owner. TRO I would agree that mandatory safety course annually and a range time requirement could be required. I would have no issue with a requirement that prior to purchasing an assault weapon type of firearm that a gun safety class and gun range training be required. Another possibility would be for the gun range master to be able to certify people as being a person who is well aware and follows gun safety thereby negating the need for annual gun safety classes but the range certification would be a requirement. Most gun owners go to the range anyways. However, there is a question about people who live in remote areas where gun ranges aren't readily available and they can simply set up a shooting range on their property. I am sure something could be worked out so that it doesn't become an economic burden on people. After all, people living in remote areas need firearms to protect themselves probably more than urban residents. If the County Sheriff takes 20 minutes to get to you then you better be able to handle your own business. One thing I would also want to avoid is dealing with anti-gun state and/or local governments who would simply refuse to allow any gun ranges or safety courses be held in their jurisdiction as an end around to get gun control in place. I could easily see politicians basically saying "Gee, too bad you can't meet the qualifications so you can't have a gun in our city/state." when the only reason they can't meet the qualifications is interference by the politicians. The gun registry is a far stickier situation. California has basically already implemented something along those lines by forcing you to register to purchase ammunition and it is a shit show. They didn't do anything to ensure the process would actually work and the system has been overwhelmed to where people who had already been deemed qualified to purchase a firearm in California under their system still aren't getting approval to purchase ammo. I won't be surprised when the California system is ruled in violation of the Second Amendment. Every time I have been to a new range, I have been required to do their firearm safety training before being allowed to use the range. This includes when I had the opportunity to shoot at a police range (yes, it felt weird shooting at metal targets with frangible ammo). I think there are means to promote firearm safety. The issue is - much like every societal issue - that the 0.1% is fucking it up for the rest of us. The best firearm control is that which is too burdensome for the assholes and not onerous on those who are responsible. I do think safety training and hours requirements/minimum qualifications can be useful and go toward that direction. It will not stop, nor will it reduce mass shootings but it will stop a lot of the accidental discharges and “hold my beer” moments. TRO |
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on Aug 8, 2019 13:09:43 GMT -8
We could all live with many things including a ban on private property ownership. Ferrari is a self indulgent toy for the very few. Shall we ban this brand? We can also live in a Country where the minority's rights are protected against the mob rule majority. Does he realize that the Constitution wasn't written to show what rights people have but as a control on the Federal Government? I'll take that as a 'yes' that they are noting more than self indulgent toys for gun geeks then. No practical uses for the AR-15. America the free! |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 13:57:14 GMT -8
We can also live in a Country where the minority's rights are protected against the mob rule majority. Does he realize that the Constitution wasn't written to show what rights people have but as a control on the Federal Government? I'll take that as a 'yes' that they are noting more than self indulgent toys for gun geeks then. No practical uses for the AR-15. America the free! So now the law according to Lord Sandals is if he feels there is no "practical use" then it should be banned solely because a fraction of a percent of the item is illegally used to commit a crime. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 13:59:23 GMT -8
By the way the guy who stabbed 4 people to death down in So Cal was an early prison release under AB 109. Thanks Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 8, 2019 14:48:26 GMT -8
The former vice president’s travails appeared to continue on Thursday while on the stump at the Iowa State Fair, where he seemed to mix up his words during a speech to fairgoers.
“We choose science over fiction,” Biden said. “We choose truth over facts.”
That's what you get when your only use the party talking points, and sometimes mix them...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 8, 2019 15:01:40 GMT -8
The former vice president’s travails appeared to continue on Thursday while on the stump at the Iowa State Fair, where he seemed to mix up his words during a speech to fairgoers.
“We choose science over fiction,” Biden said. “We choose truth over facts.”
That's what you get when your only use the party talking points, and sometimes mix them...
 |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 8, 2019 16:10:01 GMT -8
The former vice president’s travails appeared to continue on Thursday while on the stump at the Iowa State Fair, where he seemed to mix up his words during a speech to fairgoers.
“We choose science over fiction,” Biden said. “We choose truth over facts.”
That's what you get when your only use the party talking points, and sometimes mix them...
The reflexive cheer of the crowd, seen in the Twitter video, is even more amazing, though. |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 8, 2019 16:55:05 GMT -8
The Federalist papers written by Madison and Hamilton made it clear that the "well regulated Militia" referred to the people and their individual right to have weapons. The Federalist Papers assert that local militias (as opposed to a "regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country") EXIST AS A FORMIDABLE CHECK ON FEDERAL POWER. In Federalist 46, Madison writes of the local militia versus a national military: It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. [Federalist 46] Bearing arms is "the right of the people" who would make up a state militia, which protects us from national tyranny (even if Madison was overly generous in describing the efficacy of militiamen during the Revolutionary War). In Federalist 29, published 228 years ago, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton concurs as to why militias are necessary: If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29] People need firearms proficiency to defend against young soldiers of a standing army who might be, in Madison's words, "rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power." Hamilton also elaborates on ideas that would later lead to the Second Amendment, and particularly the notion of a well-regulated militia. He is unambiguous in Federalist 29 on the point that people have a right to their weapons, and that they need not attend formal military training to be part of a militia, which would be "as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."
By definition, then, a "well-regulated militia" would no longer seem to include the National Guard, which does require formal and sustained military training by the regular Army. At any rate, in its present incarnation, the Guard — as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan — is a "state" force in name only. In practice, it is a part-time Army Reserve: a national army that happens also to be used for natural disasters in home states. Hamilton writes further of the requirements of militia members: Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Federalist 29] Based on the above it is clear that the people who actually drafted the Second Amendment were referring to the people owning guns as a final line of defense against the Federal government or other army. An argument can be made that the discussion of them assembling once or twice a year would mean some kind of organized training. I would not be opposed to a requirement that if you purchase a assault weapon that it would require training at a professional gun range (not necessarily run by the State). At your own admission, regular weapons care, safety and readiness should be requirement for all gun owners at least once per year. That would befit the definition of a well-regulated militia. I would be more than happy with a requirement that all firearm owners attend a mandatory safety course annually and are required to have at least 20 hours of documented range time annually. Those steps must then be combined with reasonable punishments for failing to meet those requirements. The issue then becomes, however, how is this information tracked and audited for accuracy? Who gets to store that information? Unless you establish a firearms registry there is no way to ensure every gun owner meets the requirement of a well-regulated militia (which leads into the slippery slope argument about establishing a firearm registry). It was a lot easier 230 years ago when (and I am doing a bit of generalizing here) white male = gun owner and not white male = not gun owner. TRO Okay, if gun owners have to attend a safety course once a year and 20 hours of range time...what do we do about all license drivers since more people are killed by cars than guns every year? Of course, I’m not including suicides...just accidents, criminals, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 8, 2019 17:00:35 GMT -8
You are getting to CBF level of argument. When I start to see a guy walking down the street with a 16 inch battleship gun then you have a comparison. It's the same ridiculous argument as "Why not nuclear weapons then?" Wasn't to be taken so literally. The point was more about the vast degree of firearms/weapons today and what gets to be considered 'arms' in relation to the 2nd amendment; who gets to decide? 2nd amendment was written back when concepts of 'arms' were muskets, very basic rifles and such. Along comes AR-15 invention and americans automatically get to obtain a killing machine tucked under the 2nd amendment? How did that happen? The AR-15 has been sold to 19 year olds since 1960's. Hell, it was even in the Sears and Roebuck catalog. "Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society." Your opinion is not a fact and certainly not the law. It is one thing to say from this point forward the sale of AR-15's and the like is forbidden. It is quite another, and legally and historically unprecedented in this country, for the Government to say something legally sold is now illegal to own and we are going to come take it from you. Any attempt to do so would be immediately thrown out of Court under the Second Amendment. You know, the whole "Shall not be infringed" thing? What practical purpose does an AR-15 and similar designs have in American civilian society? You can't hunt with them. Take it to the range and destroy watermelons or a sheet of plywood? If you ask me, they're just self indulgent 'toys' for a relatively very small number of gun enthusiasts. I could very easily live with a full ban. You could too. All gun geeks need to do is shed their biased paranoias. Yes, ban them!I assume you know that way more people are killed by handguns every year than AR15’s, right? I think .22 rifles kill more also. |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 8, 2019 17:13:27 GMT -8
How about being able to show a certain amount of range time? I haven't been to a gun range the last ten years. Why make it a requirement if people aren't interested in going there. If they do make it part of the red flag laws I'll be more than happy to invest in a few of them. What a cash cow that would be I have a 50 yard range on my property. Ya’ll (well, some of you) can come and practice if they ever implement that  |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 8, 2019 19:08:02 GMT -8
I haven't been to a gun range the last ten years. Why make it a requirement if people aren't interested in going there. If they do make it part of the red flag laws I'll be more than happy to invest in a few of them. What a cash cow that would be I have a 50 yard range on my property. Ya’ll (well, some of you) can come and practice if they ever implement that If I have too I'll fly across the Country to do it Any BBQ would be a plus |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 8, 2019 21:05:15 GMT -8
Pick a side. I know where i stand.
A Republican bill that would increase penalties for throwing water on cops, after a series of incidents in which members of New York’s Finest were doused by bucket-wielding mobs, is facing some initial Democratic opposition months before the bill could even be taken up.
D Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, who will decide whether the bill gets brought up for a vote, indicated his opposition to the measure this week
|
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 8, 2019 21:13:01 GMT -8
Pick a side. I know where i stand. A Republican bill that would increase penalties for throwing water on cops, after a series of incidents in which members of New York’s Finest were doused by bucket-wielding mobs, is facing some initial Democratic opposition months before the bill could even be taken up. D Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, who will decide whether the bill gets brought up for a vote, indicated his opposition to the measure this week To add more context Speaker Carl Heastie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 21:32:23 GMT -8
At your own admission, regular weapons care, safety and readiness should be requirement for all gun owners at least once per year. That would befit the definition of a well-regulated militia. I would be more than happy with a requirement that all firearm owners attend a mandatory safety course annually and are required to have at least 20 hours of documented range time annually. Those steps must then be combined with reasonable punishments for failing to meet those requirements. The issue then becomes, however, how is this information tracked and audited for accuracy? Who gets to store that information? Unless you establish a firearms registry there is no way to ensure every gun owner meets the requirement of a well-regulated militia (which leads into the slippery slope argument about establishing a firearm registry). It was a lot easier 230 years ago when (and I am doing a bit of generalizing here) white male = gun owner and not white male = not gun owner. TRO Okay, if gun owners have to attend a safety course once a year and 20 hours of range time...what do we do about all license drivers since more people are killed by cars than guns every year? Of course, I’m not including suicides...just accidents, criminals, etc. What we currently do. We require every year that anyone driving a car pays hundreds if not thousands of dollars for insurance and registration to a government database of who owns what cars and where those cars are, and submits to a background check every 3-5 years with either a successful background check or recertification if the background check fails. If you want to submit to the same as drivers - requiring all gun owners to pay an annual registration fee, background check every 3-5 years on their gun use history and carry insurance - just to own a gun then I would say the annual safety and range requirements would be pointless. Would it be unfair to treat both auto drivers and firearm owners differently than pilots? Ensure those people are medically capable of piloting a plane, driving a car or shooting a firearm every two years and once every two years spend one hour with a licensed instructor (and of course competently complete what the instructor asks). Oh, you also need to get a license but the first one you get is good for life and can be reinstated with the medical and hour training with the instructor. Would that improve both firearm safety and driving? TRO |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 8, 2019 21:37:54 GMT -8
Okay, if gun owners have to attend a safety course once a year and 20 hours of range time...what do we do about all license drivers since more people are killed by cars than guns every year? Of course, I’m not including suicides...just accidents, criminals, etc. What we currently do. We require every year that anyone driving a car pays hundreds if not thousands of dollars for insurance and registration to a government database of who owns what cars and where those cars are, and submits to a background check every 3-5 years with either a successful background check or recertification if the background check fails. If you want to submit to the same as drivers - requiring all gun owners to pay an annual registration fee, background check every 3-5 years on their gun use history and carry insurance - just to own a gun then I would say the annual safety and range requirements would be pointless. Would it be unfair to treat both auto drivers and firearm owners differently than pilots? Ensure those people are medically capable of piloting a plane, driving a car or shooting a firearm every two years and once every two years spend one hour with a licensed instructor (and of course competently complete what the instructor asks). Oh, you also need to get a license but the first one you get is good for life and can be reinstated with the medical and hour training with the instructor. Would that improve both firearm safety and driving? TRO Not bad. What about some sort of driving competency test for seniors at some age? My sister and I removed my moms guns at 84 btw. |
|
