Scary & black = bannable

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20700
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Scary & black = bannable

Post by Turdacious » Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:12 pm

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment. "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote, referring to the "military-style rifles" that were also used during mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, San Bernardino, California, and Orlando, Florida [...]
In total, seven states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban semiautomatic rifles, several of which that have faced various court challenges as there is a longstanding legal debate over the scope of Second Amendment rights. Four appeal courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, King wrote.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryl ... SKBN1610JY
Discuss
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 10995
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:18 pm

The House just voted to overturn restrictions on selling guns to the mentally ill. I'd expect more bans of ARs in states where it's politically viable. Americans overwhelmingly don't like the status quo. Democrats have some bad ideas in this arena, but the GOP has literally no ideas.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:09 pm

My de facto white ethnostate is coming!

Unless they decide on a federal ban then it is civil war.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:17 pm

Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.

Even on the terms of their arg this is stupid and blatant gun grabbing.

Dumb fagts.

But soon we'll get to see what Tony Kennedy wants the law to be!

User avatar
Kenny X
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2671
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:00 pm
Location: Down on the bayou.

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by Kenny X » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:26 pm

I laugh, because no matter what The People's Republic Of Maryland does, they can't seem to stop the homicides.

All this hand-wringing over occasional "mass shootings", while regular old shootings continue.

I don't think tougher gun laws, and prohibition of certain guns in particular, is going to solve anything.
Killings in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties increased last year, reflecting trends in homicide figures for the District and other large cities across the country.

In 2015, Montgomery experienced one of its deadliest years in two decades with 30 homicides, and Prince George’s ended a three-year streak of declines with 81 killings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... story.html
WildGorillaMan wrote:$4000 bicycle. $300 shoes. $400 spandex.

35% bodyfat.

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11713
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by nafod » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:35 pm

bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.
If you are an Originalist, you'll know that the intent was for the militia make a standing army unnecessary. In the run-up to the Constitution, many of the state's inputs to the convention called for a standing army to be banned, period. No army, just militia. Have to make sure they are armed for war.

That lasted until the War of 1812, when the militia didn't work out so well. Standing Army to the front, please.

Now we have a massive perpetual military (and military-industrial complex), making the idea of a militia fighting off intruders a feel-good thing, nothing more.

A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.
Don’t believe everything you think.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:41 pm

Well I am not an originalist by your definition.

And your lawgic trap is lame.

None of that follows.

And I want the military shrunk to a fraction of its current size and massive withdrawal from the world stage.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:54 pm

nafod wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.
If you are an Originalist, you'll know that the intent was for the militia make a standing army unnecessary. In the run-up to the Constitution, many of the state's inputs to the convention called for a standing army to be banned, period. No army, just militia. Have to make sure they are armed for war.

That lasted until the War of 1812, when the militia didn't work out so well. Standing Army to the front, please.

Now we have a massive perpetual military (and military-industrial complex), making the idea of a militia fighting off intruders a feel-good thing, nothing more.

A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11713
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by nafod » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:57 pm

bennyonesix wrote:
nafod wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.
If you are an Originalist, you'll know that the intent was for the militia make a standing army unnecessary. In the run-up to the Constitution, many of the state's inputs to the convention called for a standing army to be banned, period. No army, just militia. Have to make sure they are armed for war.

That lasted until the War of 1812, when the militia didn't work out so well. Standing Army to the front, please.

Now we have a massive perpetual military (and military-industrial complex), making the idea of a militia fighting off intruders a feel-good thing, nothing more.

A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
Thanks for making my point. From the link, highlight mine...
Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.
Pretty clear what the original intent was. Maybe we are agreeing here?
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20700
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by Turdacious » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:05 pm

nafod wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.
If you are an Originalist, you'll know that the intent was for the militia make a standing army unnecessary. In the run-up to the Constitution, many of the state's inputs to the convention called for a standing army to be banned, period. No army, just militia. Have to make sure they are armed for war.

That lasted until the War of 1812, when the militia didn't work out so well. Standing Army to the front, please.

Now we have a massive perpetual military (and military-industrial complex), making the idea of a militia fighting off intruders a feel-good thing, nothing more.

A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.
1. The current definition of militia includes about half the military (Guard and Reserves)-- 'well-regulated' implies well trained, proficient, and capable; not farmers with pitchforks. Quite a few of the founders had first hand experience with the value of von Steuben's methods and training.
2. Doesn't any reasonable Originalist definition require a military capable of providing for the common defense?
3. There was significant debate about what was necessary among the founding fathers. Hamilton thought the idea of a military made up primarily of Northern draftees marching on Georgia ridiculous-- he was wrong (and the idea that the Federalist Papers comprised the founders intent is wrong; it comprises the intent of some of the founders).
4. The Commerce Clause complicates things, as a squid you should know this. Kicking pirate ass is a big part of Naval history.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:14 pm

nafod wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:
nafod wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:Also, a "militia" can't have "military" weapons.

As if the Founders hadn't just fought the baddest military in the world with a citizen militia. And intended the Amendment to preserve a civilian militia capable of that for perpetuity.
If you are an Originalist, you'll know that the intent was for the militia make a standing army unnecessary. In the run-up to the Constitution, many of the state's inputs to the convention called for a standing army to be banned, period. No army, just militia. Have to make sure they are armed for war.

That lasted until the War of 1812, when the militia didn't work out so well. Standing Army to the front, please.

Now we have a massive perpetual military (and military-industrial complex), making the idea of a militia fighting off intruders a feel-good thing, nothing more.

A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
Thanks for making my point. From the link, highlight mine...
Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.
Pretty clear what the original intent was. Maybe we are agreeing here?
Your argument that the 2nd is vitiated into ineffectiveness by the current size of the military is wrong and dumb. It does not follow in any way, shape or form except political convenience and bad rhetoric. There is no lawgic trap that we must either disband the standing army or allow shitlibs to grab ARs. There was ALWAYS provision for standing armies. ALWAYS. AT EVERY POINT.

Even your great case Miller doesn't argue that and it was fucking decided right after the war. Sawed offs were not covered because they aren't MILITARY WEAPONS. Thus, MILITARY WEAPONS are protected. Because it is a fucking MILITIA that needs to fight MILITARIES.

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11713
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by nafod » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:24 pm

bennyonesix wrote:Your argument that the 2nd is vitiated into ineffectiveness by the current size of the military is wrong and dumb. It does not follow in any way, shape or form except political convenience and bad rhetoric. There is no lawgic trap that we must either disband the standing army or allow shitlibs to grab ARs. There was ALWAYS provision for standing armies. ALWAYS. AT EVERY POINT.

Even your great case Miller doesn't argue that and it was fucking decided right after the war. Sawed offs were not covered because they aren't MILITARY WEAPONS. Thus, MILITARY WEAPONS are protected. Because it is a fucking MILITIA that needs to fight MILITARIES.
I'm not arguing the 2nd is vitiated into ineffectiveness. The SC has ruled an individual right to carry.

I am taking a shot at you proudly cloaking yourself in your Originalist garb, and how quickly you'll toss that onto the heap and ignore reams of original thinking as soon as it conflicts with your emotional connection to guns.

The Constitution and the run up documents are FULL OF CAUTIONS ABOUT STANDING ARMIES. Do you know why the military has to go through the gawdawful POM cycle funding drill every two years? Because the founders wanted to make sure the standing Army could be cut off at the knees at any moment funding-wise so they stuck it into the Constitution. Except for the Navy, we operated on a 5 year cycle, because of course the Navy wasn't going to suppress citizenry.

Bullshit that the militias are needed to fight the militaries. That is full-on retarded. Actually read the documents you cited. They are full of "militia instead of standing Army" and you won't find "militia in order to fight standing Army".
Don’t believe everything you think.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:27 pm

Just lulz at shitlibs with their mass of ABSOLUTELY EXISTENT RIGHTS which are nowhere in any text dead certain the one written down doesn't exist.

Aborters, fags, trannys, miscegenators, porn lovers, buyers of condoms, school integrators etc etc etc has the entire weight of the gov on their side.

Gun owners get fucked.

Makes one think.

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11713
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by nafod » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:32 pm

bennyonesix wrote:Just lulz at shitlibs with their mass of ABSOLUTELY EXISTENT RIGHTS which are nowhere in any text dead certain the one written down doesn't exist.

Aborters, fags, trannys, miscegenators, porn lovers, buyers of condoms, school integrators etc etc etc has the entire weight of the gov on their side.

Gun owners get fucked.

Makes one think.
Go find me some originalist texts that argue the militia is there to fight the standing army and not act in place of it, Mr. Originalist.

I'm perfectly OK with militias.I spent 30 years in. Let's downsize the heck out of our standing armies. Well-trained, well-armed militias, called up and sent overseas instead of our standing armies. I am all for it, bro.
Don’t believe everything you think.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:36 pm

nafod wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:Your argument that the 2nd is vitiated into ineffectiveness by the current size of the military is wrong and dumb. It does not follow in any way, shape or form except political convenience and bad rhetoric. There is no lawgic trap that we must either disband the standing army or allow shitlibs to grab ARs. There was ALWAYS provision for standing armies. ALWAYS. AT EVERY POINT.

Even your great case Miller doesn't argue that and it was fucking decided right after the war. Sawed offs were not covered because they aren't MILITARY WEAPONS. Thus, MILITARY WEAPONS are protected. Because it is a fucking MILITIA that needs to fight MILITARIES.
I'm not arguing the 2nd is vitiated into ineffectiveness. The SC has ruled an individual right to carry.

I am taking a shot at you proudly cloaking yourself in your Originalist garb, and how quickly you'll toss that onto the heap and ignore reams of original thinking as soon as it conflicts with your emotional connection to guns.

The Constitution and the run up documents are FULL OF CAUTIONS ABOUT STANDING ARMIES. Do you know why the military has to go through the gawdawful POM cycle funding drill every two years? Because the founders wanted to make sure the standing Army could be cut off at the knees at any moment funding-wise so they stuck it into the Constitution. Except for the Navy, we operated on a 5 year cycle, because of course the Navy wasn't going to suppress citizenry.

Bullshit that the militias are needed to fight the militaries. That is full-on retarded. Actually read the documents you cited. They are full of "militia instead of standing Army" and you won't find "militia in order to fight standing Army".
Oh you dumb cunt. You are the perfect 115 iq nigga who thinks he's smart because he's not actually very smart just barely above avg.

I AM NOT AN ORIGINALIST.

I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID SO.

I DON'T EVEN THINK THE BALANCE OF POWERS IDEA IS SMART.

THE WORLD OF JURISPRUDENCE DOES NOT CONSIST OF SCALIA ORIGINALISTS AND THOSE WHO ADVOCATE YOUR PREFERRED OUTCOMES.

STANDING ARMIES WERE ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE A POSSIBILITY: AN ADDITION TO THE MILITIAS.

THERE IS NO LAWGIC TRAP EITHER/OR. READ WHAT I POSTED. AFTER EVERY WARNING AS TO STANDING ARMIES THEY ALLOW FOR THEM. STRONG MEDICINE IS DANGEROUS AND USEFUL.

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11713
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by nafod » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:59 pm

bennyonesix wrote:I AM NOT AN ORIGINALIST.
My apologies. I thought you were a Scalia nuthugger
STANDING ARMIES WERE ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE A POSSIBILITY: AN ADDITION TO THE MILITIAS.
NOT LIKE THEY ARE NOW. STANDING ARMIES WERE TO BE GROWN IN TIMES OF WAR, THEN SHRUNK. IT IS WHAT WE DID FOR REVOLUTION, CIVIL WAR UPT TO WWII. BUT NOW WE HAVE STANDING ARMIES, AND NOW THEY BEING USED AS AN EXCUSE FOR ARMING UP THE CITIZENRY TO FIGHT THE STANDING ARMIES. STUPID.
Don’t believe everything you think.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:04 pm

NO THEY ARE TO FIGHT FOREIGN MILITARIES.

AND YES, OPPOSE THE FED GOV IF REQUIRED.

JimZipCode
Top
Posts: 1433
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by JimZipCode » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:16 pm

bennyonesix wrote:I AM NOT AN ORIGINALIST.

I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID SO.
It's true, he has repeatedly said so. Johno's the originalist.

But Benny, if you're not an originalist, why do you keep deploying arguments about what militia's were originally intended for, the original thinking about standing armies, etc? It's confusing.

bennyonesix wrote:Gun owners get fucked.
Gun owners have more rights post-Heller than they've ever had. The current administration is probably the most gun-friendly one in the last 50 years. In what sense do gun owners get fucked?
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:00 pm

JimZipCode wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:I AM NOT AN ORIGINALIST.

I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID SO.
It's true, he has repeatedly said so. Johno's the originalist.

But Benny, if you're not an originalist, why do you keep deploying arguments about what militia's were originally intended for, the original thinking about standing armies, etc? It's confusing.
Well, non-Originalism isn't a free for all. Statutory Constitution/Interpretation sometimes requires an inquiry into the drafting when terms are vague or non obvious or seem contradictory. And where a statute has been interpreted from the beginning based on an understanding of the drafters intent, that intent should stand.

In this case, I think the statute is clear on its face and obviously backed up by legislative history (as per the Volokh link). I also think what caselaw there is on it (Miller), was decided on that basis: individual right intended to preserve a militia capable of fighting a foreign power.

So, I would decide it on the obvious meanings of the text: militias require military grade munitions. It is backed up by caelaw and legislative history which I am not leaving out of my argument!

JimZipCode wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:Gun owners get fucked.
Gun owners have more rights post-Heller than they've ever had. The current administration is probably the most gun-friendly one in the last 50 years. In what sense do gun owners get fucked?
In the sense that the right they are exercising, which is explicit in the text, is given less deference than illusory rights created by the judiciary. This case is clearly one in which the opinion read the right in question to be as narrow as possible. This is in distinction to the general approach of judges to decisions on those other illusory rights.

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7839
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by johno » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:29 pm

As the IGx resident originalist, I note that the Second Amendment's explicit purpose was a military* one. Narrowly construing that amendment, one might restrict gun owners' rights to possess only military style weapons. Construing it a little more broadly, the government might allow/encourage citizens to own firearms of their choosing, to develop proficient marksmanship for potential military service. Construing it even more broadly, the government might provide such weapons and training.


*"A well-regulated militia being necessary...."
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7839
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by johno » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:49 pm

nafod wrote: A true originalist 2nd amendment-er would demand the military down-size to insignificance, as per original intent.
Had the authors of the Constitution wanted to ban standing armies, they would have written that.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by bennyonesix » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:55 am

johno wrote:As the IGx resident originalist, I note that the Second Amendment's explicit purpose was a military* one. Narrowly construing that amendment, one might restrict gun owners' rights to possess only military style weapons. Construing it a little more broadly, the government might allow/encourage citizens to own firearms of their choosing, to develop proficient marksmanship for potential military service. Construing it even more broadly, the government might provide such weapons and training.


*"A well-regulated militia being necessary...."
Agreed. Miller and the Militia tack are a giant briar patch I pray the liberals throw the Right into.

I'll have BARs in every white house within a decade.

User avatar
DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by DrDonkeyLove » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:39 am

Kenny X wrote:I laugh, because no matter what The People's Republic Of Maryland does, they can't seem to stop the homicides.

All this hand-wringing over occasional "mass shootings", while regular old shootings continue.

I don't think tougher gun laws, and prohibition of certain guns in particular, is going to solve anything.
Killings in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties increased last year, reflecting trends in homicide figures for the District and other large cities across the country.

In 2015, Montgomery experienced one of its deadliest years in two decades with 30 homicides, and Prince George’s ended a three-year streak of declines with 81 killings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... story.html
Deception is part of every magic trick.

Until we become Australia or England or similar, the left will never stop their gun grabbing from law abiding citizens despite any assurance otherwise. It's in their DNA.

It's why we can't give an inch when it comes to gun rights (even for things that are completely reasonable) because the goal line must inexorably move leftward until there's no place else for it to go.

Personally, I'd like to see gun rights sanctuary counties in places like upstate NY and western MD.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7839
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by johno » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:09 am

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Personally, I'd like to see gun rights sanctuary counties in places like upstate NY and western MD.
Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants...sanctuary counties for gun owners.... The logic is unassailable. Unless you assign fewer rights to US citizens than to foreign illegals.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11713
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Scary & black = bannable

Post by nafod » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:19 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
In 2015, Montgomery experienced one of its deadliest years in two decades with 30 homicides, and Prince George’s ended a three-year streak of declines with 81 killings.
Gun advocates in congress have literally legislated ignorance by blocking data gathering and analysis, and so shouldn't be allowed to attempt to use facts to argue anything.
It's why we can't give an inch when it comes to gun rights
Sigh...Donk, I consider you one of the reasonable ones

This is a child-like playground position, and leaves me looking for the reasonable adults in the whole argument.
Last edited by nafod on Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don’t believe everything you think.

Post Reply