NationStates

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:01 pm**

Thermodolia wrote:
Valrifell wrote:NYC is not an authoritarian shithole because they have laws you disagree with and restrict a right you feel is completely inalienable.

Its exaggeration at best and another shitty attempt to demonize the other at worst.

They banned drinks over 16oz. That’s the very definition of being authoritarian

Worse actually, it's totalitarian.

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:02 pm**

Fartsniffage wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:An-caps probably. Most people were cheering him, for what it's worth. Still though.

I'm assuming you think that firearms should only be sold to adults?

Yes, with the caveat that if a parent or legal guardian wants to gift a firearm to their children, they should be allowed to do so.

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:34 pm**

Len Hyet wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
I'm assuming you think that firearms should only be sold to adults?

Yes, with the caveat that if a parent or legal guardian wants to gift a firearm to their children, they should be allowed to do so.

How old are these children? I wouldn’t trust 5 year old me with a big stick, much less a firearm.

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:35 pm**

Kowani wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:Yes, with the caveat that if a parent or legal guardian wants to gift a firearm to their children, they should be allowed to do so.

How old are these children? I wouldn’t trust 5 year old me with a big stick, much less a firearm.

I'd lean towards parent's discretion, though I can see an argument for a minimum age of like 12.

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:40 pm**

Len Hyet wrote:
Kowani wrote:How old are these children? I wouldn’t trust 5 year old me with a big stick, much less a firearm.

I'd lean towards parent's discretion, though I can see an argument for a minimum age of like 12.

I mean, I wouldn’t trust 12 year old me either, but 12 year old me was fuckin’ stupid. But if we’re gonna give guns to children, 12 seems at least acceptable. (We’re still not letting tem bring them to school though.)

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:52 pm**

Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:27 pm**

Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

I want some of whatever you’re smoking so I can burn a fields where it goes.

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:10 am**

Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

I actually agree unsarcasticly.

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:11 am**

Kowani wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:I'd lean towards parent's discretion, though I can see an argument for a minimum age of like 12.

I mean, I wouldn’t trust 12 year old me either, but 12 year old me was fuckin’ stupid. But if we’re gonna give guns to children, 12 seems at least acceptable. (We’re still not letting tem bring them to school though.)

Why not? I support concealed carry everywhere; schools, banks, aircraft cabins.

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:55 am**

Kowani wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

I want some of whatever you’re smoking

I don't smoke. I don't even touch large amounts of alcohol.

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:03 am**

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Kowani wrote:I mean, I wouldn’t trust 12 year old me either, but 12 year old me was fuckin’ stupid. But if we’re gonna give guns to children, 12 seems at least acceptable. (We’re still not letting tem bring them to school though.)

Why not? I support concealed carry everywhere; schools, banks, aircraft cabins.

Y’aee, this is why gun control supports laugh at you.
(We may not know every type of gun inside and out, but goddamn if we don’t know that guns have no place in any of the places you named.

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:07 am**

Kowani wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

I want some of whatever you’re smoking so I can burn a fields where it goes.

A-we will end your week just like a Sunday!

Also, anyone know if there is any truth to this picture making it's way around Reddit atm?

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:31 am**

Kowani wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Why not? I support concealed carry everywhere; schools, banks, aircraft cabins.

Y’aee, this is why gun control supports laugh at you.
(We may not know every type of gun inside and out, but goddamn if we don’t know that guns have no place in any of the places you named.

Why should we care what the laughing stock laughs at? They're the laughing stock because they don't know what they're talking about.

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:03 am**

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:08 am**

Crockerland wrote:(Image)

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters

I'm trying to figure this post out. Your wife's boyfriend... hmmm....

But dang it, you got us, they found the loophole!

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:08 am**

Crockerland wrote:(Image)

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters

Crockerland wrote:My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property

Crockerland wrote:My wife's boyfriend helped me

Posted: **Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:40 am**

Crockerland wrote:(Image)

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters

Keep the tism in WG damn it, you're leaking

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:15 am**

Kowani wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:Yes, with the caveat that if a parent or legal guardian wants to gift a firearm to their children, they should be allowed to do so.

How old are these children? I wouldn’t trust 5 year old me with a big stick, much less a firearm.

I started shooting around five or so.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:18 am**

Crockerland wrote:(Image)

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters

Wouldn't work in Texas. It doesn't meet the 30.06 or 30.07 standard.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:30 pm**

Alright so I'm tired of all this bullshit regarding the "durr durr well regulated militia : D" garbage so I'm gonna make another effortpost that can be linked to whenever someone wants to regurgitate some nonsensical talking points.

A common talking point amongst anti gun folks is that pro-gun people willfully ignore the prefatory clause of the second amendment. As you well know that reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Ignoring for the moment that this is simply a prefatory statement we need to break down what it actually means. "Well regulated" as an adjective in the 1600-1800's was commonly understood to refer to things like proper discipline and being in working order and there's several examples to be found of it demonstrating such:

"If a liberal Education has formed in us well regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

"The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world."

"It appeared to her well regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

Those are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and range from the early 1700's to the 1860's, though there are earlier and later cases as well. The phrase didn't come to mean government regulation until much later and thus obviously had no bearing on what Madison wrote in the 1700's.

Another important part of judicial history that needs to be taken into account is the 18th century English case Copeman v Gallant which stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict the effect of the words of the purview". Whilst our English cousins would change this a hundred years later to lend more credence and importance to preambles this has never changed in American jurisprudence and thus the settled law in the United States is that the preamble has no control over the operative clauses of anything.

Another common misconception is the second amendment is unique in its usage of a prefatory clause. Whilst this is true for the federal bill of rights it is not true of America as a whole at the time.

Rhode Island, 1842 wrote:The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty

New Hampshire, 1784 wrote:In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed

Massachusetts, 1780 wrote:The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

The thing all of these have in common with the second amendment is that each has a prefatory clause that serves as nothing more than an introduction and reason as to why the right exists. None of them create arbitrary lines on whom the right applies to.

Lets go a bit further and see what the states had to say about the masses owning weaponry shall we?

Pennsylvania Declaration of rights wrote:That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Vermont Declaration of rights wrote:That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of themselves and the State: and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

Kentucky Declaration of rights wrote:The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Missouri bill of rights wrote:That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.

Starting to notice a pattern? Odd how if the right was only supposed to apply to members of the militia that everyone everywhere made sure to extend that right to the entire citizenry.

Oh lets also not forget that DC v Heller was not the massive precedent upsetter that the gun control lobby likes to label it as. Lets dive into a bit of SCOTUS history!

Dred Scott v Sanford wrote:“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Huh, if the second amendment applied only to members of the militia why would it immediately give "persons of the Negro race" the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went in addition to all those other ones? I'll tell you why, it's because it's always been understood that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms just as all the other amendments dealing with individual rights do. But lets go a bit further.

US v Cruikshank wrote:“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”

This particular bit is commonly held up as proof that the second amendment doesn't protect the right to bear arms by those who fail to understand what it's saying. Whether you agree with it or not the foundation of our nation was based in the idea of natural rights and Cruikshank affirms that belief. What the court is saying there is that people naturally have the right to bear arms and that all the second amendment does is restrict the power of the national government (this was before incorporation under the 14A really began but this has since been extended to the states as well in McDonald v Chicago) to infringe upon and restrict that right.

Practically the entire basis of the "collective right" theory that anti-gunners love to spout originated in 1939 with US v Miller. Miller was a dude who had a short barrel shotgun that was not registered with the recently passed National Firearms Act and when caught brought a case against the government alleging it violated the second amendment. I'll spare you all the boring details but this case was absurdly shady and filled with so much BS that it should be thrown out entirely. Miller died before the hearing at SCOTUS started and his lawyer went missing thus leaving only one party present. FDR's administration then flexed it's muscles and put lots of pressure on the court to rule in their favor and uphold the NFA, which they did by claiming that short barrel shotguns had no militarily relevant usage (an objectively false statement too, they were widely used by the Army) and that the government could regulate them as a result. Of course this ruling works both ways given they indirectly said the second amendment also protects any weapons useful in a military context, which makes all the harping on about "military style semi automatic assault rifles" rather amusing.

So all in all the collective right theory has no basis in reality except for a single absurdly shady court case that has since been largely overturned. If anyone who likes to parrot the "muh militia" line would like to challenge any of this please feel free to.

potato

Posted: **Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:15 am**

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Alright so I'm tired of all this bullshit regarding the "durr durr well regulated militia : D" garbage so I'm gonna make another effortpost that can be linked to whenever someone wants to regurgitate some nonsensical talking points.

A common talking point amongst anti gun folks is that pro-gun people willfully ignore the prefatory clause of the second amendment. As you well know that reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Ignoring for the moment that this is simply a prefatory statement we need to break down what it actually means. "Well regulated" as an adjective in the 1600-1800's was commonly understood to refer to things like proper discipline and being in working order and there's several examples to be found of it demonstrating such:

"If a liberal Education has formed in us well regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

"The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world."

"It appeared to her well regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

Those are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and range from the early 1700's to the 1860's, though there are earlier and later cases as well. The phrase didn't come to mean government regulation until much later and thus obviously had no bearing on what Madison wrote in the 1700's.

Another important part of judicial history that needs to be taken into account is the 18th century English case Copeman v Gallant which stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict the effect of the words of the purview". Whilst our English cousins would change this a hundred years later to lend more credence and importance to preambles this has never changed in American jurisprudence and thus the settled law in the United States is that the preamble has no control over the operative clauses of anything.

Another common misconception is the second amendment is unique in its usage of a prefatory clause. Whilst this is true for the federal bill of rights it is not true of America as a whole at the time.

Rhode Island, 1842 wrote:The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty

New Hampshire, 1784 wrote:In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed

Massachusetts, 1780 wrote:The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

The thing all of these have in common with the second amendment is that each has a prefatory clause that serves as nothing more than an introduction and reason as to why the right exists. None of them create arbitrary lines on whom the right applies to.

Lets go a bit further and see what the states had to say about the masses owning weaponry shall we?

Pennsylvania Declaration of rights wrote:That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Vermont Declaration of rights wrote:That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of themselves and the State: and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

Kentucky Declaration of rights wrote:The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Missouri bill of rights wrote:That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.

Starting to notice a pattern? Odd how if the right was only supposed to apply to members of the militia that everyone everywhere made sure to extend that right to the entire citizenry.

Oh lets also not forget that DC v Heller was not the massive precedent upsetter that the gun control lobby likes to label it as. Lets dive into a bit of SCOTUS history!

Dred Scott v Sanford wrote:“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Huh, if the second amendment applied only to members of the militia why would it immediately give "persons of the Negro race" the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went in addition to all those other ones? I'll tell you why, it's because it's always been understood that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms just as all the other amendments dealing with individual rights do. But lets go a bit further.

US v Cruikshank wrote:“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”

This particular bit is commonly held up as proof that the second amendment doesn't protect the right to bear arms by those who fail to understand what it's saying. Whether you agree with it or not the foundation of our nation was based in the idea of natural rights and Cruikshank affirms that belief. What the court is saying there is that people naturally have the right to bear arms and that all the second amendment does is restrict the power of the national government (this was before incorporation under the 14A really began but this has since been extended to the states as well in McDonald v Chicago) to infringe upon and restrict that right.

Practically the entire basis of the "collective right" theory that anti-gunners love to spout originated in 1939 with US v Miller. Miller was a dude who had a short barrel shotgun that was not registered with the recently passed National Firearms Act and when caught brought a case against the government alleging it violated the second amendment. I'll spare you all the boring details but this case was absurdly shady and filled with so much BS that it should be thrown out entirely. Miller died before the hearing at SCOTUS started and his lawyer went missing thus leaving only one party present. FDR's administration then flexed it's muscles and put lots of pressure on the court to rule in their favor and uphold the NFA, which they did by claiming that short barrel shotguns had no militarily relevant usage (an objectively false statement too, they were widely used by the Army) and that the government could regulate them as a result. Of course this ruling works both ways given they indirectly said the second amendment also protects any weapons useful in a military context, which makes all the harping on about "military style semi automatic assault rifles" rather amusing.

So all in all the collective right theory has no basis in reality except for a single absurdly shady court case that has since been largely overturned. If anyone who likes to parrot the "muh militia" lie would like to challenge any of this please feel free to.

potato

Well done WRA, well done.
I would like to add that many of the states at the time would not ratify a Constitution unless it contained an enumeration on the right to keep and bear arms.
Madison's first proposal on the right to keep and bear arms along with 18 other substantive items, were presented on June 8, 1789 to the house of representatives.
The first right to keep and bear arms amendment was presented as:

"that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person."

In this proposal the enumeration of the right itself was presented first as it was widely discussed among the representative of the other states that there were to be an enumeration of the right to keep and bear arms.

Madison's proposals were referred to a select committee that reported to the House, when it left committee it read:

A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person
religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

The House debated on the last clause of the proposal:

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of
the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power
to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

An amendment to remove the "religiously scrupulous" failed. When 17 articles of amendments were sent to the Senate, the Senate combined and streamlined some of the amendments, in regards to the right to keep and bear arms, the Senate omitted, "composed of the body of the people" and deleted the provision exempting conscientious objectors from service. The Senate rejected language that would have added the words, "for the common defense" as part of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for the common defense) shall not be infringed.
Which bring us to the now adopted language of the Second Amendment.

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

With that said, I'd also like to point out that, New York, New Hampshire and Virginia would ratify a Constitution while expressing their understanding that the people had the right to keep and bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law abiding citizens. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify until individual rights to keep and bear arms were recognized in a Constitution.

Madison understood the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, and of the varying proposals until the final draft of the 2nd Amendment, it is quite clear Madison intended along with Congress and the states that ratified what became the 2nd Amendment understood the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, and those who ratified the Constitution along with Madison would have rejected the notion that "a well regulated militia" would in any way be a prerequisite upon an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Posted: **Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:32 pm**

Kowani wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

I want some of whatever you’re smoking so I can burn a fields where it goes.

That actually used to be the case in public schools back in the 60's right around the start of deer-season.

My dad even did a presentation on how to reload live ammunition in the classroom.

Followed by trap-shooting on the football-field.

Posted: **Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:42 pm**

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:
Kowani wrote:
I want some of whatever you’re smoking so I can burn a fields where it goes.

That actually used to be the case in public schools back in the 60's right around the start of deer-season.

My dad even did a presentation on how to reload live ammunition in the classroom.

Followed by trap-shooting on the football-field.

Shoot, my grandfather taught me to shoot with a revolver he bought for himself at 14, and carried to school every day in high school.

Posted: **Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:59 pm**

Big Jim P wrote:
Kowani wrote:How old are these children? I wouldn’t trust 5 year old me with a big stick, much less a firearm.

I started shooting around five or so.

I started around 8.

Posted: **Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:05 pm**

Northern Davincia wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:
I started shooting around five or so.

I started around 8.

The fact that neither of you started shooting while in the womb brings shame to gun owners everywhere

NationStates

Gun Control III - the Gunnening