Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Pax Nerdvana]

I would think a scyth would create much more gruesome wounds then a shotgun.

I don't think he's gonna brutally dismember Bugs Bunny with the scythe

Probably true, but you never really know.

I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.

[The Two Jerseys]

I don't think he's gonna brutally dismember Bugs Bunny with the scythe

Probably true, but you never really know.

I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.

And unamplified live speech.

And religions that existed in 1787 (sorry Mormons).

[Novus America]

I don't think he's gonna brutally dismember Bugs Bunny with the scythe

Probably true, but you never really know.

I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.

Exactly. The reason the early militia acts (but not the Constitution which deliberately does not specify such specifics) specifically REQUIRED every able bodied (well free white) male 18-45 own a musket or muzzle loading rifle (plus 24 or 20 rounds de of ammo) was those were the standard military arms of the time. It was designed to adapt to the technology of the time, not the other way around.

Actually this calls into question the restrictions on automatics, if we updated the militia act so that everyone had the equivalent it would probably require everyone able bodied (regardless of race or gender because equality and all) own an M-16 or M-4, presumably with the happy switch still on it (although admittedly it is just silly on the M-4).

[Pax Nerdvana]

Probably true, but you never really know.

I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.

Exactly. The reason the early militia acts (but not the Constitution which deliberately does not specify such specifics) specifically REQUIRED every able bodied (well free white) male 18-45 own a musket or muzzle loading rifle (plus 24 or 20 rounds de of ammo) was those were the standard military arms of the time. It was designed to adapt to the technology of the time, not the other way around.

Actually this calls into question the restrictions on automatics, if we updated the militia act so that everyone had the equivalent it would probably require everyone able bodied (regardless of race or gender because equality and all) own an M-16 or M-4, presumably with the happy switch still on it (although admittedly it is just silly on the M-4).

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe it was Colonel Jeff Cooper who said that no American can truly be a citizen without being qualified on the M16.

Probably true, but you never really know.

I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.

And unamplified live speech.

And religions that existed in 1787 (sorry Mormons).

And nothing more then hardcover books.

[Violent Mike]

Exactly. The reason the early militia acts (but not the Constitution which deliberately does not specify such specifics) specifically REQUIRED every able bodied (well free white) male 18-45 own a musket or muzzle loading rifle (plus 24 or 20 rounds de of ammo) was those were the standard military arms of the time. It was designed to adapt to the technology of the time, not the other way around.

Actually this calls into question the restrictions on automatics, if we updated the militia act so that everyone had the equivalent it would probably require everyone able bodied (regardless of race or gender because equality and all) own an M-16 or M-4, presumably with the happy switch still on it (although admittedly it is just silly on the M-4).

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe it was Colonel Jeff Cooper who said that no American can truly be a citizen without being qualified on the M16.

And unamplified live speech.

And religions that existed in 1787 (sorry Mormons).

And nothing more then hardcover books.

Hope you like having your car searched.

[Gig em Aggies]

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe it was Colonel Jeff Cooper who said that no American can truly be a citizen without being qualified on the M16.
And nothing more then hardcover books.

Hope you like having your car searched.

can't have your car searched if it's getting a massage at the junkyard.

[Violent Mike]

Can refuse to have troops quartered in your home, unless you live in a travel trailer.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Can refuse to have troops quartered in your home, unless you live in a travel trailer.

And skyscrapers would fall under that as well.

[Kowani]

Can refuse to have troops quartered in your home, unless you live in a travel trailer.

And skyscrapers would fall under that as well.

Only residential portions.

[Telconi]

And skyscrapers would fall under that as well.

Only residential portions.

Business skyscrapers existed in 1776?

[Kowani]

Only residential portions.

Business skyscrapers existed in 1776?

Well, no, because there were no skyscrapers of any kind until 1885.

[Telconi]

Business skyscrapers existed in 1776?

Well, no, because there were no skyscrapers of any kind until 1885.

Hrmm, makes you wonder rather skyscrapers are really houses...

[Novus America]

Business skyscrapers existed in 1776?

Well, no, because there were no skyscrapers of any kind until 1885.

Exactly. That is the point. The constitution does not say “this only applies to things and technologies available in the 1780s”. So to say it only applies to 1780s weapons is absurd.

[Kowani]

Well, no, because there were no skyscrapers of any kind until 1885.

Hrmm, makes you wonder rather skyscrapers are really houses...

John Adams says no, Ben Franklin is more openminded.

[Telconi]

Hrmm, makes you wonder rather skyscrapers are really houses...

John Adams says no, Ben Franklin is more openminded.

Which Federalist paper addresses rather skyscrapers are houses?

[Grinning Dragon]

Can refuse to have troops quartered in your home, unless you live in a travel trailer.

During peace time, a requirement of war time quartering of troops can be done by means approved by the legislature as a balance between private property rights and the potential wartime need for military quarters.

[Kowani]

Well, no, because there were no skyscrapers of any kind until 1885.

Exactly. That is the point. The constitution does not say “this only applies to things and technologies available in the 1780s”. So to say it only applies to 1780s weapons is absurd.

From a legalistic point of view, you're right.

[Novus America]

Exactly. That is the point. The constitution does not say “this only applies to things and technologies available in the 1780s”. So to say it only applies to 1780s weapons is absurd.

From a legalistic point of view, you're right.

And then this is a good argument “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment clearly was designed so that at least all “free white men” could own (actually were REQUIRED to own) the commonly used military small arms of the time (as the supporting legislation, the militia act, requires such weapons to be owned by said person).

As the AR-15, AR-10 and M-14 are contemporary equivalents to the Charleville 1766 and Kentucky Long Rifle types specified as REQUIRED to be owned in the Militia Act, (you bought you own and could pick which one you wanted) they should be allowed for ownership, at least for all members of the militia, which includes ALL able bodied men 17-45 (the racial thing was removed, and the age lowered to 17 in subsequent amendments).

But the whole men only seems pretty damn sexist, so in the name of equality women should be allowed to own the same weapons as men.

[Kowani]

From a legalistic point of view, you're right.

And then this is a good argument “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment clearly was designed so that at least all “free white men” could own (actually were REQUIRED to own) the commonly used military small arms of the time (as the supporting legislation, the militia act, requires such weapons to be owned by said person).

As the AR-15, AR-10 and M-14 are contemporary equivalents to the Charleville 1766 and Kentucky Long Rifle types specified as REQUIRED to be owned in the Militia Act, (you bought you own and could pick which one you wanted) they should be allowed for ownership, at least for all members of the militia, which includes ALL able bodied men 17-45 (the racial thing was removed, and the age lowered to 17 in subsequent amendments).

But the whole men only seems pretty damn sexist, so in the name of equality women should be allowed to own the same weapons as men.

No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.

Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.

[Telconi]

And then this is a good argument “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment clearly was designed so that at least all “free white men” could own (actually were REQUIRED to own) the commonly used military small arms of the time (as the supporting legislation, the militia act, requires such weapons to be owned by said person).

As the AR-15, AR-10 and M-14 are contemporary equivalents to the Charleville 1766 and Kentucky Long Rifle types specified as REQUIRED to be owned in the Militia Act, (you bought you own and could pick which one you wanted) they should be allowed for ownership, at least for all members of the militia, which includes ALL able bodied men 17-45 (the racial thing was removed, and the age lowered to 17 in subsequent amendments).

But the whole men only seems pretty damn sexist, so in the name of equality women should be allowed to own the same weapons as men.

No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.

Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.

Yes, but the absence of a mandate is not a ban.

[Novus America]

And then this is a good argument “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment clearly was designed so that at least all “free white men” could own (actually were REQUIRED to own) the commonly used military small arms of the time (as the supporting legislation, the militia act, requires such weapons to be owned by said person).

As the AR-15, AR-10 and M-14 are contemporary equivalents to the Charleville 1766 and Kentucky Long Rifle types specified as REQUIRED to be owned in the Militia Act, (you bought you own and could pick which one you wanted) they should be allowed for ownership, at least for all members of the militia, which includes ALL able bodied men 17-45 (the racial thing was removed, and the age lowered to 17 in subsequent amendments).

But the whole men only seems pretty damn sexist, so in the name of equality women should be allowed to own the same weapons as men.

No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.

Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.

I know the requirement is unfortunately no longer there, but still under the 1908 act all men 17-45 (and yes women in the Guard) are the militia, but just because the militia are no longer required to provide their own arms, that still does not change the fact the as per the constitution they have a right to such weapons, if they wish.

(But the women thing still needs to be fixed to be all women who are citizens or applying to become citizens as the militia too).

[Kowani]

No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.

Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.

I know the requirement is unfortunately no longer there, but still under the 1908 act all men 17-45 (and yes women in the Guard) are the militia, but just because the militia are no longer required to provide their own arms, that still does not change the fact the as per the constitution they have a right to such weapons, if they wish.

Ah, yes. This is true.

[The Chuck]

And then this is a good argument “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment clearly was designed so that at least all “free white men” could own (actually were REQUIRED to own) the commonly used military small arms of the time (as the supporting legislation, the militia act, requires such weapons to be owned by said person).

As the AR-15, AR-10 and M-14 are contemporary equivalents to the Charleville 1766 and Kentucky Long Rifle types specified as REQUIRED to be owned in the Militia Act, (you bought you own and could pick which one you wanted) they should be allowed for ownership, at least for all members of the militia, which includes ALL able bodied men 17-45 (the racial thing was removed, and the age lowered to 17 in subsequent amendments).

But the whole men only seems pretty damn sexist, so in the name of equality women should be allowed to own the same weapons as men.

No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.

Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.

Well... you've seen my rifle Kowani...

1st gen. immigrant and I'm armed up just like how the founding fathers intended...

I smell a good founding fathers copy pasta moment somewhere around here...

[Kowani]

No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.

Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.

Well... you've seen my rifle Kowani...

1st gen. immigrant and I'm armed up just like how the founding fathers intended...

I smell a good founding fathers copy pasta moment somewhere around here...

...You're Korean.
The founding fathers were not keen on minorities having weapons.

While we can't know what they thought about Armed Koreans, due to the total lack of Korean immigrants in the late 1700's, the fact thaat the militia act of 1792 only included white men does not say they would've looked kindly upon it.

[Telconi]

Well... you've seen my rifle Kowani...

1st gen. immigrant and I'm armed up just like how the founding fathers intended...

I smell a good founding fathers copy pasta moment somewhere around here...

...You're Korean.
The founding fathers were not keen on minorities having weapons.

While we can't know what they thought about Armed Koreans, due to the total lack of Korean immigrants in the late 1700's, the fact thaat the militia act of 1792 only included white men does not say they would've looked kindly upon it.

Every once in a while Kowani does have a decent point. No matter how much modern gun culture approves of your rifle Chuck, the FFs would almost certainly not be keen on some person from a land they have literally never heard of having a sweet gat.