Mr. Executive Order and Chief at it again

[Ronson]

I agree very much that handguns are a big part of the problem, especially where criminals and crime are involved.

Are you content to let that be the end of it, or are you willing to lend your vote to trying to do something about it?

There's nothing to be done about it. The horse is out of the barn.

[oxmixmudd]

It doesn't matter what was available then. The wording of the amendment acknowledges that we have the right to be armed and that the government CANNOT infringe upon that right. There wasn't some debate about which types of guns we have a right to have, the right to be armed and defend ourselves goes beyond technology. We have the right to arm ourselves with whatever we want, it is our right. And the government has no power over that right.

that's what a natural right is. something that is not granted but recognized.

I'm not debating what the amendment says, though I don't think it says all you think it says, and apparently neither do the courts wrt 'anything we want'. My point is that the 2nd amendment was not crafted in a time when a single weapon could destroy the entirety of the state of Delaware, or a single gun in the hand of one man could kill 100 people 1000 yards away in 5 minutes or less.

In this day it is more a hindrance to civil society than it is a deterent to foreign invaders.

[seanD]

Times have changed G. The 2nd amendment is no longer a sensible thing beyond the basic pistol, rifle, or shotgun for hunting of basic home defense - nostalgia notwithstanding - and not without reasonable safeguards against putting them in the hands of criminals or the mentally ill.

You've already been corrected on this error. 2A is based on the rights of individuals to protect themselves from their enemies with equal or more powerful weaponry (back then it was muskets, now it's semi-automatics), whether that's a tyrannical government (again, don't try and use that spiel about missiles and nukes because I'll check you again on that point), or whether it's a bunch of armed criminal home invaders trying to harm you and your family.

[oxmixmudd]

There's nothing to be done about it. The horse is out of the barn.

Can't never could.

[oxmixmudd]

You've already been corrected on this error. 2A is based on the rights of individuals to protect themselves from their enemies with equal or more powerful weaponry (back then it was muskets, now it's semi-automatics), whether that's a tyrannical government (again, don't try and use that spiel about missiles and nukes because I'll check you again on that point), or whether it's a bunch of armed criminal home invaders trying to harm you and your family.

I left what you need for basic home defense. and it says right to 'bear arms', not 'equal or more powerful'. In its day it made sense for that to encompass the same guns as used by the militaries of the day. The political and social realities may have made even something like a cannon a reasonable extension. But to me It just doesn't make sense anymore. Because the military weapons are too powerful to be entrusted to an unvetted citizen. Too much damage can be done too quickly by a crazy. So there need to be controls and limits, oversight.

Its not about keeping you from owning a gun or even several. Its about making sure crazies and criminals don't have them, and making sure the power of any single man to kill and destroy before they are stopped is limited.

[kccd]

How common are house fires in your neighborhood? I would suspect not very common (I can't think of it ever happening in any neighborhood I've ever lived in), but I bet you keep a fire alarm in your house, don't you?

Smoke detectors are required by law. I have lived in neighborhoods where homes were struck by lightning, including one I was in at the time.

But I don't know anyone who has a gun, or who has been injured by gunfire, or who has been threatened by anyone with a gun.

Are there places in the country where home invasions are common enough to justify having guns at the ready?

[Mountain Man]

Smoke detectors are required by law. I have lived in neighborhoods where homes were struck by lightning, including one I was in at the time.

But I don't know anyone who has a gun, or who has been injured by gunfire, or who has been threatened by anyone with a gun.

Are there places in the country where home invasions are common enough to justify having guns at the ready?

That whooshing sound you hear is the point going over your head.

[Gondwanaland]

It has nothing to do with ignorance G, it has to do with what was in common use at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...can_Revolution

Like I said, I have no intention of going down rabbit holes over how many seconds or minutes it might take to reload one of these weapons. Nor am I going to go down rabbit holes related to the sorts of uncommon weapons that might have been invented somewhere on the earth at that time or that simply were not in common use for other reason - like being unproven or unreliable.

Puckle guns were invented years before the revolution. The other weapons I referenced, were in use well before the Bill of Rights was written. I understand you want to run away after you got proven wrong. I won't stop you. Tuck that tail.

Sure, it was a different time. There were not billion dollar supersonic bombers in 1776, nor were their M1 Abrams Tanks, Nuclear powered Submarines nor 2,000 round per minute gattling guns like those on an A10.

*shrug* I don't see much reason for people to not have those, personally. If they can afford them.

I always laugh when someone comes out with "Bu whuh about tankkkkksssssss?" As a libertarian I say, the more the merrier, bud. Don't threaten me with a good time.

Still can - but not without certain 'limitations'

https://www.online-paralegal-program...gal-in-the-us/

Source: above

Cannon shells are classed as destructive devices in the U.S. under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). They must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and, though legal under federal law, are prohibited from being owned by civilians in certain states. Muzzle-loading cannons themselves, however, are – remarkably – not deemed to be firearms in the U.S. and are therefore not regulated by the NFA.

© Copyright Original Source

Times have changed G. The 2nd amendment is no longer a sensible thing beyond the basic pistol, rifle, or shotgun for hunting of basic home defense - nostalgia notwithstanding - and not without reasonable safeguards against putting them in the hands of criminals or the mentally ill.

I own a working Civil War Cannon, by dude, as well as WWII machine guns and a bazooka. I don't need you to oxisplain to me, especially given that you've already shown in the previous posts that you seem to get your info from random google searches and whatever pap your party leaders have fed you in Public School.

[Cow Poke]

There's nothing to be done about it. The horse is out of the barn.

Yes, at this point, you'll just make criminals out of honest citizens, and existing criminals don't give a flyin' flip about gun laws.

[Gondwanaland]

Here it comes...

Biden expected to announce executive actions on gun control Thursday

And just in case anyone wondered where things might go with Biden... his ATF pick was one of the case agents that botched the Waco raid and murdered a bunch of unarmed people.

[Cow Poke]

And just in case anyone wondered where things might go with Biden... his ATF pick was one of the case agents that botched the Waco raid and murdered a bunch of unarmed people.

[seanD]

I left what you need for basic home defense. and it says right to 'bear arms', not 'equal or more powerful'. In its day it made sense for that to encompass the same guns as used by the militaries of the day. The political and social realities may have made even something like a cannon a reasonable extension. But to me It just doesn't make sense anymore. Because the military weapons are too powerful to be entrusted to an unvetted citizen. Too much damage can be done too quickly by a crazy. So there need to be controls and limits, oversight.

Its not about keeping you from owning a gun or even several. Its about making sure crazies and criminals don't have them, and making sure the power of any single man to kill and destroy before they are stopped is limited.

2A doesn't just address home defense. In fact, I would argue home defense was a given back then so that isn't AT ALL what 2A was addressing. The context was the revolutionary war, hence the ability of revolutionaries to arm themselves against a tyrannical government, period. If a revolutionary war broke out in the streets today, for the most part, government weaponry would consist of semi-autos, and fully autos (already heavily regulated or outright banned from civilian use -- completely unconstitutional!). 2A is for allowing equal weaponry as their government oppressors to oppose being oppressed by those forces. It doesn't matter that you disagree with that, it is what it is. There's no way possible you can keep such weapons out of the hands of crazies and ESPECIALLY criminals outside of what regulation already exists, anymore than you could stop crazies or criminals recklessly driving a vehicle no matter how much vehicle regulation you impose. You and the lefties just have to accept that reality. Only way you could stop it is a total gun ban (and even THEN you won't get guns away from criminals), and we know that ain't gonna happen without monumental consequences. There are ways to mitigate gun violence, but it isn't by continuing to violate 2A with more pointless and unconstitutional gun regulation.

[oxmixmudd]

Puckle guns were invented years before the revolution. The other weapons I referenced, were in use well before the Bill of Rights was written. I understand you want to run away after you got proven wrong. I won't stop you. Tuck that tail.

*shrug* I don't see much reason for people to not have those, personally. If they can afford them.

I always laugh when someone comes out with "Bu whuh about tankkkkksssssss?" As a libertarian I say, the more the merrier, bud. Don't threaten me with a good time.




I own a working Civil War Cannon, by dude, as well as WWII machine guns and a bazooka. I don't need you to oxisplain to me, especially given that you've already shown in the previous posts that you seem to get your info from random google searches and whatever pap your party leaders have fed you in Public School.

Well clearly you have no interest in civil conversation. But it takes two, and I'm not fightin', so that is that as they say.

[oxmixmudd]

2A doesn't just address home defense. In fact, I would argue home defense was a given back then so that isn't AT ALL what 2A was addressing. The context was the revolutionary war, hence the ability of revolutionaries to arm themselves against a tyrannical government, period. If a revolutionary war broke out in the streets today, for the most part, government weaponry would consist of semi-autos, and fully autos (already heavily regulated or outright banned from civilian use -- completely unconstitutional!). 2A is for allowing equal weaponry as their government oppressors to oppose being oppressed by those forces. It doesn't matter that you disagree with that, it is what it is. There's no way possible you can keep such weapons out of the hands of crazies and ESPECIALLY criminals outside of what regulation already exists, anymore than you could stop crazies or criminals recklessly driving a vehicle no matter how much vehicle regulation you impose. You and the lefties just have to accept that reality. Only way you could stop it is a total gun ban (and even THEN you won't get guns away from criminals), and we know that ain't gonna happen without monumental consequences. There are ways to mitigate gun violence, but it isn't by continuing to violate 2A with more pointless and unconstitutional gun regulation.

I understand why '2A' was created. And I believe right now those reasons are not sufficient justification for the carnage that is the legacy of a society where guns flow like water. Other countries with stricter controls on guns just do not have the problems with mass shootings we do. The cost outweighs any potential benefit is really very obvious it seems to me.

Now as to how the get the cat back in the bag ... that is a very hard problem. maybe it's impossible.. but if nothing is done, the cat is guaranteed to never go back in the bag on its own.

There are random mass shootings just about every day now it seems. I sure hope we can find a way to get that cat back in it's bag.

[Catholicity]

I agree very much that handguns are a big part of the problem, especially where criminals and crime are involved. Are you content to let that be the end of it, or are you willing to lend your vote to trying to do something about it?

The time when hand guns do most of the killing is during domestic assaults. However firearms by themselves are not horrible things. I am ok with responsible private gun ownership. I am not ok with the aspect of our culture that treats guns like toys.