re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

flattery will get you very far

I find it ironic that you had that poster BTW

Anyway, anti gun isn't a position that annoys me in the slightest, it is people who try and take a position intentionally made vague

My best friend thinks the second amendment is bullshite, so that's what he says. It's bullshite. I can definitely rationalize and understand a liberal mindset, but alan Dershowitz (the father of second amendment interpretation) I will never understand. He is even honest. Repealing #2 makes everything fair game so we have to ban guns while keeping the law intact...is that not the dumbest thing you've ever heard?

The blood of tyrants quote is 100% Jefferson. Both sides carried that mindset... Even John Adams, though not for militia reasons (the biggest dick of the group thought every citizen had the right to own firearms but for...wait for it...self defense)

To summarize: it is a matter of fact the intent of the second amendment, It is amusing to me that it's even a debate. If you want to repeal #2, just say it. But liberal politicians don't because they'll be swept the frick out of office in an unheard of shift of power...so they lie. They're liars

Did the site go down for everyone else?

quote:

---

Did the site go down for everyone else?

---

Did for me.

quote:

---

it is people who try and take a position intentionally made vague

---

For the record, my gun position is that the right to bear arms is clearly in the constitution and protected, but that doesn't preclude common sense gun control (guns out of the hands of small children, criminals, insane; required safety classes; and other stuff along those lines.

However, I'm also weary of the people arming themselves like there's an imminent uprising in this country.

Back to the point of the OP, I do think the history of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment over time has been interesting, especially with the evolution of weaponry since that time into more advanced killing machines.

quote:

---

 but that doesn't preclude common sense gun control (guns out of the hands of small children, criminals, insane; required safety classes; and other stuff along those lines.

---

Except "common sense" is arbitrary and its use here is just a framing device. Isn't common sense to advocate for laws that are effective in their stated purpose? Do you advocate for laws that lack empirical evidence to support their passage?

quote:

---

especially with the evolution of weaponry since that time into more advanced killing machines. 

---

So why does it matter to the 2A that technology advances when it doesn't matter to the 1A? Would you be more concerned about being shot by a .60 Cal musket ball vs a .223 Reminton bullet over the fact you were shot at all?

quote:

---

guns out of the hands of small children, criminals, insane

---

All of which are, by law, not allowed to purchase firearms

But what is mental illness? I have aspergers and you can be your arse that they want to keep tem from me without even a slight understanding of what that is. You draw a line and it moves. And our justice department has roughly a 0% prosecution rate for criminals attempting to purchase guns. There is no way to have background checks be all encompassing without wiping our arse with the 4th amendment. And when they say universal background checks, that means not background checks. The lies about gun show purchases and so forth are maddening because they're lies

quote:

---

However, I'm also weary of the people arming themselves like there's an imminent uprising in this country.

---

I have an FN Five Seven and a Kimber 3" 1911. That's all. I don't want an armorery, but I'm glad others do. The purpose of this amendment was to scare the shite out of government from abusing power and taking their corpses out of office if they do. The opposition at the time was what it was for. Opponents of A2 supported an individuals right to bear arms but for "personal protection" it's all the same if you ask me.

quote:

---

evolution of weaponry

---

Counted for. The framers didn't dismiss the idea of technological growth. They weren't far removed from the discovering of a new world amongst countless scientific discoveries. Again, when people pull this out with the "muskets" debate. Like them or not, these were brilliant men. They weren't fricking stupid. They kept it nice and simple because it was iron fricking clad.



Now can I please get back to work?

quote:

---

Except "common sense" is arbitrary and its use here is just a framing device. Isn't common sense to advocate for laws that are effective in their stated purpose? Do you advocate for laws that lack empirical evidence to support their passage?

---

I've noticed the conservatives recently railing against the term "common sense." I don't quite get it.

I support keeping guns out of the hands of people that intend to use them for harm. If that somehows inadvertantly stops a non-criminal from getting a gun, then so be it. I don't think things like requiring background checks really prevents legal gun ownership.

quote:

---

So why does it matter to the 2A that technology advances when it doesn't matter to the 1A? Would you be more concerned about being shot by a .60 Cal musket ball vs a .223 Reminton bullet over the fact you were shot at all?

---

I was more referring to the capabilities to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time. Even if there were a bunch of law-abiding armed folks around, I bet a person with ill-intent could still kill a few people before he or she was stopped.

I can attest from experience (deer hunting) that a .54 cal musket ball is by far more damaging and deadly than .223

quote:

---

How do we resolve ambiguities in the Constitution?

---

If only there was a system for this

Those Vietnamese dirt farmers did alright

Let's say .25 percent revolt, around 90 million people with guns, you dont know who they are

Then you'd have to rely on the support of your 18-25 y/o troops being cool with fighting citizens.

It's a deterrent but that's another conversation

There most certainly is. However, I doubt we could pass a contitutional amendement agreeing that gravity exists. Besides, you're speaking of teh process to change the Constitution. Do we really need to use that system to address ambiguities that arise because ofhte advancement of technology and society?

What do we do about the ambiguities in the meantime? Do different Congresses just get to interpret the Constitution as they see fit? That sounds like a solid foundation for economic growth and the predictability of laws and regulations.