NATION

PASSWORD

Gun Control 2020 (IV) - Year of the Boogaloo?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

With the state government of Virigina increasingly cracking down on the 2nd Amendment, what say you?

The Virginian Government is 100% in the right, seize the scary boomsticks!
20
11%
The Virginian Government is 100% in the right, but shouldn't take away the peoples pew pews.
14
8%
I'm indecisive so I'll just take this nice little middle choice...
5
3%
The Virginian Government is 100% wrong and should be removed from power peacefully.
52
29%
The Virginian Government is 100% wrong and should be removed from power Forcibly.
24
13%
The Tree of Liberty... *straps on plate carrier* / Fuck it, Boogaloo time!
64
36%
 
Total votes : 179

User avatar
Narland
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1083
Founded: Apr 19, 2013
Anarchy

Postby Narland » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:25 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Narland wrote:Compare the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Federal Bill of Rights is largely based:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 - Section 13

It looks like they started to quote Section 13 word for word, and then went succinct.

Notice that they used commas and semi-colons that would be grammatically incorrect today. Also, that a citizen militia is considered safe, while a standing army is considered dangerous.

Federal law throughout our history has defined the Militia as all (draft) capable men between the years of age 18 to 35-45. An organization can be regular (meeting on a regular basis) like many counties used to do or irregular (no set meeting times if any), regulated (like the ones that used to meet at the county armories (and some still do, and largely usurped by the National Guard Act). The Federal law defining these change often as America changes from a limited government federal republic to an ever expanding bureaucratic administrative state.

When I was a teenager my county still required me to join the bucket list as part of an organize militia -- report to the sheriff for deputation training, join the volunteer fire department, become an EMT (paid for by the county), join the National Guard, and there were some other options like clerking for the courthouse. If someone owned a weapon of war like a tank or bazooka they were required to keep it at the Country Armory and only use it when authorized (like for training with the National Guard). Those that stopped doing so can be considered unorganized. As the US drifts further from its roots, few jurisdictions even have memory of what it means to fulfill the 2nd Amendment.


Thanks, yeah I had noticed that various states have slightly clearer interpretations. Seems to me the US was supposed to be more like the Swiss canton system but the federal government has way over reached its power. I can certainly understand why in terms of civil rights but this has clearly seeped into all areas.

Seems to me that gun rights could act as a framing point to simply review the US as a whole if there was a candidate brave enough and able to cut through the noise of partisan rhetoric.

For myself I don't mind guns, I hunted when young and had shotguns but they were licensed, had to be locked separate from the key and I certainly couldn't just walk around town with them.

It was, yes. Our founders looked at all Republics of their time and through history including the Netherlands and Switzerland.

The Nationalists through a marketing coup took the name Federalists, while who were the Federalists suddenly found themselves called "Anti-Federalist" shifting us from a "These United States" to a "This United States." The Un-republican faction of the GOP during the Civil War and Reconstruction cemented the latter ("This United States) against the protests of the more republican minded in the GOP. (The GOP has always been a loose coalition of disparate groups). The Progressive movement in both parties at the turn of the last century, participated in creating the need for and expectation of a "rational professional administration" of the civil service at all levels of an eventually centralized bureaucratic authority. This has further tended to eroded our Federal form less like Switzerland and more toward the Federal Republic of Germany up to today. It seems one party wants a bureaucratic socialist state that is part of a administrative global hegemon, and the other wants a corporatist moderately socialist state as part of an commercial global hegemony. Neither looks like Federalism as envision by the Founders, or the sources that our Founders drew from.

addenda:
One of my step-fathers was a mercenary. He had a HK-71 "Sporting Rifle." Limiting it to semi-automatic fire, is sporting I suppose, but I didn't think the attachable grenade launcher was. But it was great for hunting jack-rabbits (the rifle, not the grenade launcher). One summer one of the southern counties was offering $5 per pelt. There were so many that I quit my summer job and spent last month of summer before school collecting pelts. I used the money to splurge on snow-skis, good ski gear, a season pass, etc.
Last edited by Narland on Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:05 pm, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:27 pm

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
Considering Hong Kong is being strong armed by the PRC, I'd rather people have easier access to guns.

He might be in the pro-China political camp.


I'm pro-not-wanting-to-see-blood-on-the-streets.. but you can check the HK thread to see my views on the subject.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:29 pm

Bombadil wrote:
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:He might be in the pro-China political camp.


I'm pro-not-wanting-to-see-blood-on-the-streets.. but you can check the HK thread to see my views on the subject.


Didn't a bunch of riot police chopped off some guy's wang?
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:33 pm

Chernoslavia wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
I'm pro-not-wanting-to-see-blood-on-the-streets.. but you can check the HK thread to see my views on the subject.


Didn't a bunch of riot police chopped off some guy's wang?


Not that I know of..

If citizens had guns then the police would be using live rounds and the protests would have been crushed ages ago. The fact they've been able to continue is due to a lack of bloodshed. It may not have achieved aims but it's certainly made the government sit up and notice, which I don't think it would need to have done if it could crush the protests through death and then message it as violent armed dissenters.

The fact that such a majority of protestors are essentially peaceful is what's allowed for continued support.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30778
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:33 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
Heckler and Koch? :D


Even in airports, where I can see their use, I still find it odd when I see those.. I was in Paris a couple of years ago over Christmas and there was a terrorist scare in the airport when I was checking in. All these armed police with H+K's came running in and ordered us out onto the pavement.. if you're really unused to seeing guns it's unnerving to be faced with them.

Telconi wrote:Which is interesting, because you said you didn't have a problem with guns. I find it odd that you say you don't have a problem with guns, and yet you "thank God" that there aren't any around.


I don't have a problem with guns given their proper and responsible use. There simply isn't much hunting here.. but then I think the idea of everyone owning a gun, or walking around town with them, is in theory a fine idea until you see society breaking down.

I mean civil wars are perpetuated by the global gun trade, there was a flow map of where guns come from and go to and it's depressing, flowing from the UK, France, US and Russia into economically and societally divided regions.

It's easy to support gun ownership in a statistically safe place.


That whole mentality "I don't mind X, but only if it fits into my neat little idea of what X ought to be" is just ... odd ... to me
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49643
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:41 pm

Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?


It is in the bill of rights, which means it is a right. Rights are limitations on government power. So reading this as a States' right* ? That presents a whole can of worms I do not think you want. Would that mean states could over ride federal gun regulation by declaring every gun owner a member of the state Militia ? Because Montana is in fact trying to do something similar by saying machine guns made in state are legal. I don't think you want that solution.

It also runs contradictory to right of the people statement used elsewhere in the Constitution most notably amendment ten everywhere else right of the people creates an individual right. It also runs contradictory to how the Constitution creates rights held by the states. Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution says the Federal Government shall guarantee every state a republican form of government and protect them from invasion. The tenth Amendment clearly distinguishes between powers retained by the states or respectively by the people.

That is the hole in the entire States' rights argument interpretation of the second amendment. While there is some degree of variance when the Constitution creates individual rights it is exceptionally clear when referring to States' rights and powers. The reason for this is the primary concern of the Constitutional convention was determining where federal powers ended and state powers began. If the 2nd Amendment was creating a states' rights the people would not have been brought into it and it would have been far more specific.

*The term collective rights is often used today but that is ahistroical as the Constitution gives rights and powers either to the people or to the states not to the Borg.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:49 pm

Telconi wrote:That whole mentality "I don't mind X, but only if it fits into my neat little idea of what X ought to be" is just ... odd ... to me


Well it's a bit like prostitution. In theory I think it's fine for anyone to use or sell their body how they want.. in a perfect society. However we don't live in perfect societies, and the effects are huge exploitation, violence and suffering in reality, which gets worse in the poorer economic areas.

Thus in America it might be a legitimate debate given due protections, although it still results in exploitation, violence and suffering.. but that skews the opinions where people don't look beyond their borders.

I mean it can be hard not to look at the world, spaces of highest conflict, as the boundaries of global arms sales. I think it as odd for those who look to themselves individually and think 'I should own a gun' and separate themselves from the misery that is arms in general.

Link
Last edited by Bombadil on Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:13 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
Heckler and Koch? :D


Even in airports, where I can see their use, I still find it odd when I see those.. I was in Paris a couple of years ago over Christmas and there was a terrorist scare in the airport when I was checking in. All these armed police with H+K's came running in and ordered us out onto the pavement.. if you're really unused to seeing guns it's unnerving to be faced with them.


Interesting. What about legionnaires with FAMAS rifles?
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30778
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:43 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Telconi wrote:That whole mentality "I don't mind X, but only if it fits into my neat little idea of what X ought to be" is just ... odd ... to me


Well it's a bit like prostitution. In theory I think it's fine for anyone to use or sell their body how they want.. in a perfect society. However we don't live in perfect societies, and the effects are huge exploitation, violence and suffering in reality, which gets worse in the poorer economic areas.

Thus in America it might be a legitimate debate given due protections, although it still results in exploitation, violence and suffering.. but that skews the opinions where people don't look beyond their borders.

I mean it can be hard not to look at the world, spaces of highest conflict, as the boundaries of global arms sales. I think it as odd for those who look to themselves individually and think 'I should own a gun' and separate themselves from the misery that is arms in general.

Link


Well there is a fundamental difference between "I should own a gun" and "I think people, in general, should own guns"
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Licana
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16185
Founded: Jul 26, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Licana » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:50 am

Bombadil wrote:Sure, but 'well-regulated', or from your example, 'when properly formed', which indicate there needs to be at least some form of structure to any group as opposed to just any individual regardless. If you want it to be for anyone then..

The archaic use of "well regulated" in the writing of the bill of rights practically just means "working properly." In order for the militia to work properly, the people must be allowed to arm themselves. That's what it is saying.
>American education
[19:21] <Lubyak> I want to go and wank all over him.
Puzikas wrote:Gulf War One was like Slapstick: The War. Except, you know, up to 40,000 people died.

Vitaphone Racing wrote:Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.

Husseinarti wrote:
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Do lets. I really want to hear another explanation about dirty vaginas keeping women out of combat, despite the vagina being a self-cleaning organ.

So was the M-16.

Senestrum wrote:How are KEPs cowardly? Surely the "real man" would in fact be the one firing giant rods of nuclear waste at speeds best described as "hilarious".

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:56 am

Licana wrote:
Bombadil wrote:Sure, but 'well-regulated', or from your example, 'when properly formed', which indicate there needs to be at least some form of structure to any group as opposed to just any individual regardless. If you want it to be for anyone then..

The archaic use of "well regulated" in the writing of the bill of rights practically just means "working properly." In order for the militia to work properly, the people must be allowed to arm themselves. That's what it is saying.


Can you source that?

The link posted earlier by Grinning Dragon is certainly food for thought. Seems the ambiguity of the 2nd is a mishmash result between Federalist and anti-Federalist philosophy.
Last edited by Bombadil on Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Licana
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16185
Founded: Jul 26, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Licana » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:01 am

Bombadil wrote:
Licana wrote:The archaic use of "well regulated" in the writing of the bill of rights practically just means "working properly." In order for the militia to work properly, the people must be allowed to arm themselves. That's what it is saying.


Can you source that?

https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
>American education
[19:21] <Lubyak> I want to go and wank all over him.
Puzikas wrote:Gulf War One was like Slapstick: The War. Except, you know, up to 40,000 people died.

Vitaphone Racing wrote:Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.

Husseinarti wrote:
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Do lets. I really want to hear another explanation about dirty vaginas keeping women out of combat, despite the vagina being a self-cleaning organ.

So was the M-16.

Senestrum wrote:How are KEPs cowardly? Surely the "real man" would in fact be the one firing giant rods of nuclear waste at speeds best described as "hilarious".

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:22 am

Licana wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
Can you source that?

https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


Right, but still a militia, however well regulated. Having said that, and given I've not previously really done great research into this, I did find this..

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi ... ontext=lcp

..which seems to support the right of individuals to bear arms.

I guess the key is that the specific protection is to allow for the people to retain the ability to form militias in case of danger. I guess we should allow for the sale of nukes if that is the case. Seems to me if this were to be resolved then the 2nd Amendment would require constitutional change, which is unlikely.

Still, it also calls into question the size of the standing army.
Last edited by Bombadil on Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Licana
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16185
Founded: Jul 26, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Licana » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:31 am

Bombadil wrote:


Right, but still a militia, however well regulated. Having said that, and given I've not really done great research into this, I did find this..

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi ... ontext=lcp

..which seems to support the right of individuals to bear arms.


I mean, it requires a special kind of mental gymnastics to come to any conclusion but that re. the 2nd Amendment. The language is actually fairly clear, especially in the part pertaining to what right is given to the people and how much that right should be infringed.

Bombadil wrote:I guess the key is that the specific protection is to allow for the people to retain the ability to form militias in case of danger. I guess we should allow for the sale of nukes if that is the case.

This but unironically.
>American education
[19:21] <Lubyak> I want to go and wank all over him.
Puzikas wrote:Gulf War One was like Slapstick: The War. Except, you know, up to 40,000 people died.

Vitaphone Racing wrote:Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.

Husseinarti wrote:
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Do lets. I really want to hear another explanation about dirty vaginas keeping women out of combat, despite the vagina being a self-cleaning organ.

So was the M-16.

Senestrum wrote:How are KEPs cowardly? Surely the "real man" would in fact be the one firing giant rods of nuclear waste at speeds best described as "hilarious".

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15615
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:15 am

Bombadil wrote:


Right, but still a militia, however well regulated. Having said that, and given I've not previously really done great research into this, I did find this..

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi ... ontext=lcp

..which seems to support the right of individuals to bear arms.

I guess the key is that the specific protection is to allow for the people to retain the ability to form militias in case of danger. I guess we should allow for the sale of nukes if that is the case. Seems to me if this were to be resolved then the 2nd Amendment would require constitutional change, which is unlikely.

Still, it also calls into question the size of the standing army.

For me it's about preventing the state having a monopoly on force, thus I do think allowing nukes is a good idea.

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30778
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:19 am

Bombadil wrote:


Right, but still a militia, however well regulated. Having said that, and given I've not previously really done great research into this, I did find this..

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi ... ontext=lcp

..which seems to support the right of individuals to bear arms.

I guess the key is that the specific protection is to allow for the people to retain the ability to form militias in case of danger. I guess we should allow for the sale of nukes if that is the case. Seems to me if this were to be resolved then the 2nd Amendment would require constitutional change, which is unlikely.

Still, it also calls into question the size of the standing army.


I think the Miller test is probably a good starting point. Basically "Is this a weapon the common soldier on the battlefield would have a use for?" If yes, 2nd covers it.

Now this would eliminate nuclear weapons, after all the typical soldier hardly deploys with a Polaris missile in his pocket. However it would include things like automatic rifles, GPMGs, hand grenades, mortars, and light anti-armor weapons.
Last edited by Telconi on Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
The Two Jerseys
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13599
Founded: Jun 07, 2012
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Two Jerseys » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:30 am

Chernoslavia wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
I'm pro-not-wanting-to-see-blood-on-the-streets.. but you can check the HK thread to see my views on the subject.


Didn't a bunch of riot police chopped off some guy's wang?

Don't know, but it's a safe bet that they karate chopped some guy named Wang.
"The Duke of Texas" is too formal for regular use. Just call me "Your Grace".
"If I would like to watch goodness, sanity, God and logic being fucked I would watch Japanese porn." -Nightkill the Emperor
"This thread makes me wish I was a moron so that I wouldn't have to comprehend how stupid the topic is." -The Empire of Pretantia
Head of State: HM King Louis
Head of Government: The Rt. Hon. James O'Dell MP, Prime Minister
Ambassador to the World Assembly: HE Sir John Ross "J.R." Ewing II, Bt.
Join Excalibur Squadron. We're Commandos who fly Spitfires. Chicks dig Commandos who fly Spitfires.

User avatar
Hammer Britannia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5281
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Hammer Britannia » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:39 am

Chernoslavia wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
I'm pro-not-wanting-to-see-blood-on-the-streets.. but you can check the HK thread to see my views on the subject.


Didn't a bunch of riot police chopped off some guy's wang?

I wasn't able to find anything. The closest I got was some poor girl who was improperly and unnecessarily strip-searched after being arrested during an anti-government protest.

Still fucked up

Edit: Well, there was some liveleak video. But no, fuck that
Last edited by Hammer Britannia on Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
The FN FAL fetishist, Bisexual Libertarian Pagan, 27-year-old Boomer your mom warned you about
Supreme Dictator WA delegate of The Labyrinth. Please join, we have memes
Discord Server (Abandon all hope, ye who enter here!)

User avatar
Crockerland
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Oct 15, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Crockerland » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:46 am

Hammer Britannia wrote:
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I can see them going even further unfortunately.

I mean, is there any country in the western world where guns are fully banned?

It seems to be an exclusively American thing

Some small island nations like Palau could fit that definition. New Zealand will probably ban firearms completely soon, they have been advancing towards that agenda rapidly.
National Liberalism, Nuclear & Geothermal Power, GMOs, Vaccines, Self-defense, Biodiesel, LGBTI equality, Universal healthcare, Constitutional Carry, Emotional Support Twinks, Right to life


User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15615
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:58 am

Telconi wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
Right, but still a militia, however well regulated. Having said that, and given I've not previously really done great research into this, I did find this..

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi ... ontext=lcp

..which seems to support the right of individuals to bear arms.

I guess the key is that the specific protection is to allow for the people to retain the ability to form militias in case of danger. I guess we should allow for the sale of nukes if that is the case. Seems to me if this were to be resolved then the 2nd Amendment would require constitutional change, which is unlikely.

Still, it also calls into question the size of the standing army.


I think the Miller test is probably a good starting point. Basically "Is this a weapon the common soldier on the battlefield would have a use for?" If yes, 2nd covers it.

Now this would eliminate nuclear weapons, after all the typical soldier hardly deploys with a Polaris missile in his pocket. However it would include things like automatic rifles, GPMGs, hand grenades, mortars, and light anti-armor weapons.

I go much further. I think if a weapon is available for government use it should also be available to the citizenry. This covers literally anything in a government arsenal.

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:41 am

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I go much further. I think if a weapon is available for government use it should also be available to the citizenry. This covers literally anything in a government arsenal.


I mean technically the 2nd Amendment agrees with you, which is why it's insane given the advances in technology. Still, only Congress can change that.

Ironically it's Constitution Day today..

Whether abortion or gun control it seems Congress has abrogated its responsibility to deal with things one way or another. Checks and balances has become laughable. It's led to complete stagnation in progress or protection of fundamental values and left it to courts, which leads to the charge of politicised judiciary when in fact it's the cowardice of Congress.

Again, I kind of weight this all down to campaign finance. If you're job depends on financial contributions then you're always beholden to wedge interests.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14449
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:45 am

Hammer Britannia wrote:
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:This is a contradictory position. The point of the first ten amendments is preventing the government from regulating those same rights.

Alright, the Government now has the ability to regulate the first amendment under US-SSR's logic. That pesky little 14th amendment and 15th amendment too. 19th amendment? Regulated

I mean, do you really want Donald Trump under control of your freedom of speech? Do you really want Alabama to be under control over their state's religion? Do you want those southern hicks to control those last three amendments? Do you want Sarah Palin to be under the control of the constitution? Jfc

Don’t be silly. The constitution is only meant to constrain the actions of republicans.
Trad-Catholic, hispanophile Texan distributist and paleoconservative.
Economic left -3.88, authoritarian 6.15
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
St Generalissimo Francisco Franco, pray for president Trump!

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:18 am

Diopolis wrote:
Hammer Britannia wrote:Alright, the Government now has the ability to regulate the first amendment under US-SSR's logic. That pesky little 14th amendment and 15th amendment too. 19th amendment? Regulated

I mean, do you really want Donald Trump under control of your freedom of speech? Do you really want Alabama to be under control over their state's religion? Do you want those southern hicks to control those last three amendments? Do you want Sarah Palin to be under the control of the constitution? Jfc

Don’t be silly. The constitution is only meant to constrain the actions of republicans.


No no, it's meant to stagnate thinking to that of the 18th century, much like the Bible talks of Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Progress is, as the old joke goes, the opposite of Congress.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Grinning Dragon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6931
Founded: May 16, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Grinning Dragon » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:29 am

Aww, love must be in the air, beta boy beto has a girl friend, on her back and knees with neal and bob, kamala also supports confiscation, er a mandatory buy back scheme.
Kamala Harris says she supports a mandatory buyback on(made up firearm classification) 'assault weapons'
I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Gun-Control is the belief that declawing the cat will protect it against other animals; also why are anti-gun people so violent?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery!
Socialism- the herpes of economic systems.
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead. Proud American infidel since the 1970's-Deus Vult
The made up term "toxic masculinity" is founded on nonsense psychologism

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15615
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:38 am

Grinning Dragon wrote:Aww, love must be in the air, beta boy beto has a girl friend, on her back and knees with neal and bob, kamala also supports confiscation, er a mandatory buy back scheme.
Kamala Harris says she supports a mandatory buyback on(made up firearm classification) 'assault weapons'

She sounded like she was doped up in that most recent debate. Perhaps she's not a complete idiot and this can be put down to an impaired mental state.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aureumterra, Celritannia, Duvniask, Fartsniffage, Ifreann, Immoren, Lost Memories, Minachia, Newne Carriebean7, Nobel Hobos 2, Pilipinas and Malaya, Proctopeo, S7sirius, Saiwania, SD_Film Artists, Shrillland, Tarsonis, Telconi, The Black Forrest, Thermodolia, Valentine Z, Zerose

Advertisement

Remove ads