Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by UltimateApathy, Aug 3, 2017.
The militia argument was settled by the courts; kind of a nonstarter.
the court decision you're referring to basically said the content of my last post
Yes, from the “constitution society.” Have you looked for anything else?
Which quoted examples of phrase usage from the Oxford English Dictionary. Am I going to change your mind by supplying you with other links or are you just going to continue being pedantic about this?
I’m going to keep challenging you on it, as there are political scientists and scholars who challenge this definition.
If regulated means “in well-working order,” then I’d ask how we determine something is “well-working.” Every able bodied male might be a virtual militia member; but outside of any institutional organization, determining regulation is next to impossible. Just because the OED defines something a certain way doesn’t mean that’s how the authors were using it. That’s not how language works.
So, you're just going to be pedantic. Got it.
Did you not read the link? It quoted phrase usage from the time frame which is consistent with the use of 'well working' as the definition. I feel like you're baiting me rn.
If you think I'm wrong, provide evidence instead of supposition. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary at this time.
Scholars and political scientists can theorize all they want about what the founding fathers meant, but SCOTUS doesn't give a fuck what they said. They have ruled in Heller, McDonald and Caetano that Americans have a right to bear arms, period. Like Dak said, the 'well regulated militia' argument is a non starter based on SCOTUS decisions about this.
EDIT: I just noticed that you went from 'well regulated' to 'regulation' to make your argument. Was that intentional?
I’m on my phone leaving town for a weekend getaway. I’m not ruining it anymore than I already have.
The ironic thing is, you could go and read other studies and interpretations on this issue—if you actually cared to. There’s so much scholarship out there, but now everyone’s an internet wizard. But all this is ultimately beside the point: whatever the constitution means, it doesn’t change the fact that we’re fully justified in throwing out the whole damn thing and starting from scratch. Even if “well regulated” includes every male citizen, there’s no reason that holds water today beyond the fetish Americans have over the constitution. Laws change as people’s minds change.
Furthermore, you’re actually being more pedantic than I am by insisting on exact definitions. I’m signing off for the weekend, enjoy rolling with the other hogs through all this bullshit.
Riddle me this, Ein: Why would an amendment have the following in the same sentence:
1) Regulation of the right to bear arms (via a National Guard which didn't exist at the time)
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Surely the word 'people' extends beyond just the National Guard that didn't exist at the time of the Constitution or does that particular definition stay the same solely to fit your narrative?
Nah, they change as politicians' minds change
We inch closer to balkanization. Not sure how that's going to turn out though because some of the balkanization is at the county or even neighborhood level.
I said 'probably' and I think I changed my stance later on in that thread. Thanks for working controversy into my lighthearted post you dumb motherfucker. I bet you suck at shooting.
>implying I wasn't giving you shit
Yeah, probably. I don't go to the range enough. I would go once a week if I could afford it but shooting at paper targets is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to shooting and personal protection. Shooting 100 rounds at a silhouette target once a month =/= training.
I'm more than happy to put a bet down if you're ever in town though. Loser buys dinner.
I honestly don't understand, do you mean "was"?
I suck with handguns, but im good with shotguns and hunting rifles. Competing with clays is funner than seeing who can get the tightest grouping on a target, but id do it if you insisted. You've probably mentioned it 100 times, but what guns do you usually shoot?
No. It's another way of saying "You're implying I was serious".
Handguns because they are my EDC but I'm getting into rifles more. I have a Mosin that just collects dust and I have a handful of shotguns and AR-15s are in there too. I would like to take a tactical shotgun class but they aren't offered much around here. I don't hunt so all of my shotguns are more for home defense or tactical purposes.
I have a few revolvers too because I think they look cool
I've never shot clays but I'm a member at a club that has a great facility for that so I may look into it.
Shit dude, you gotta do it. It's definitely a blast and beats target practice by far imo. The setups they have at gun clubs are the best, but even a back yard thrower is fun.
If you can secure 2/3rds of the Senate and House, AND 3/4ths of the state legislative bodies, sure. Otherwise, no, it's about as justified as the president arbitrarily directing the military to enforce "Everyone Gives the Pres a Rimjob Day".
let be real here, Ozz just wants free dinner.
Libs are just fascists who don't know it yet. They'd be happy with a military coup if the military wasn't full of people who like guns.
If it's anything other than handguns it would probably be me with the free dinner. I usually miss 3 in 5 shots at a target at 5 yds with a handgun, lol