gun control nuts

And the militias of old are NOT equivalent of the natl guard as they were conscripts not volunteers which the guard is.

And the militias of old are NOT equivalent of the natl guard as they were conscripts not volunteers which the guard is. Originally Posted by garhkal

there are some key differences between militia and national guard.

what you said was one.

the other is that the most militia owned firearms privately, the national guards do not, the state provided them.

And the militias of old are NOT equivalent of the natl guard as they were conscripts not volunteers which the guard is. Originally Posted by garhkal

Did someone post they were "equivalent"?

Local militias were formed from the earliest English colonization of the Americas in 1607. The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. The title "National Guard" was used from 1824 by some New York State militia units, named after the French National Guard in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette. "National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control from 1933.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation..._United_States

The use of the word "militia" in the amendment refers to a military organized and "regulated" by the "Government" ..(that sounds more like the Guard ... see quote above)... not a band of terrorist, anti-government marauders OPPOSING the government. Again, the INTERPRETATION is that citizens would be allowed to keep weapons without GOVERNMENT interference to defend themselves AGAINST GOVERNMENT action, so the GOVERNMENT was PROHIBITED by the 2nd amendment from taking those weapons from citizens that would be used to defend themselves against OPPRESSIVE ACTIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT.

You do not use 21st century terminology to define the meaning of the word "militia" crafted in the 18th century.

One, BTW, has to separate the time line when doing a comparison between the activities imposed by the Brits and the activities after the formal beginning of "the Union" of Colonial States. The 2nd amendment had NOTHING to do with "conscription" of citizens as military service members.... if that were true then the Government would be able to control the possession and use of those weapons. (There was a movement at one time for the local government to own the weapons "assigned" to citizens, but that was not involving the 2nd amendment and was not generally acceptable, which further draws the distinction.)

As for "agencies" ...
ButtScramble needs to read the Act authorizing the appointment of U.S. Marshals. It doesn't establish an "agency" at all. The publicity of the says ... "oldest Federal Law Enforcement Agency"! NOT "OLDEST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY"!

Still trying to be relevant and cherry picking without reading. The appointment of A MARSHALL to a territory is not the same as organizing a group of gunmen into a "company" (agency) fighting together.

You remind me of AssUp and his claim there are no sharks in the water off Galveston Beach .... because I didn't post the FULL LEGAL NAME of the Galveston Tourist Bureau!!!!! The word "petty" comes to mind ... you, ButtScramble, are nothing but a knit picking little trollop. You both try too hard to parse words in order to look correct, while WTF, your buddy, does the mind-reading!

I've seen several "gun-controllers" stammer and stutter when asked to describe in detail legislation that would have prevented the Las Vegas from obtaining firearms that could cause the type of damage he visited upon unarmed, innocent concert goers.

Does anyone believe a law in Chicago that no Black people can own firearms would reduce the slaughter rate between Black people in Chicago? Or would Black Lives Matter, the NAACP, and the ACLU raise hell about it?

The "gun-controllers" neglect TO THINK that those who wish mischief are creative!



Or cooking utensils ...

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's why we need "Asshole Control" not Gun Control.

Jim

That's why we need "Asshole Control" not Gun Control.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

This is the Clintonian method of "gun control"!



... not only the guntoters but their families as well.

I've said it to you in the past several times. It doesn't really matter what the intent of the Founding Fathers was way back when. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Perhaps not. What has changed since then, in regards to why 2A was added to our Constitution?

You think we have advanced as a society passed the point where a government would ever use it army against its citizens?

You think we have advanced as a society passed the point where a government would ever use it army against its citizens? Originally Posted by grean

As long as a Clinton isn't in the White House ... or a like thinker, "we" might be ok .....

You think we have advanced as a society passed the point where a government would ever use it army against its citizens? Originally Posted by grean

There are many things I worry about in my life. Worrying about the government using its army against me is not one of them.

Are you citing news/Op-Ed articles for scholarly legal support? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not sure what you are getting at but the intent of my post was to show Garhkal that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. Some believe it says anyone can carry any weapon at any time in any place. Others say it does not apply to individuals at all. SCOTUS and other lower courts have ruled that in their opinion the truth lies somewhere in between.

It does matter what the Founding Fathers intended, speedy. They wrote the Constitution; so, what they intended is entirely relevant, you lying SOB, and the court 'splained that to your ignorant ass. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

They wrote the Constitution but the 2nd Amendment in its vagueness does not say what YOU want it to say, hence the need for the court system all the way up to SCOTUS needint to interpret what the 2nd Amendment does and does not guarantee the citizens of this country. The Founding Fathers MAY have wanted ALL citizens to have the right to own ANY gun and carry it ANYPLACE, but the 2nd amendment does NOT state that.

There are many things I worry about in my life. Worrying about the government using its army against me is not one of them. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Me neither. You think empires don't ever fall, though? You don't get house insurance after your house burns down, do you?

Because you & I don't need 2A today doesn't mean those living tomorrow will not.

To have and not need is better than needing and thinking,"Oh shit! Really wish I had a gun!"


Hope we never will.

"Mendacious" would be the better word. While there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to guarantee individual gun ownership, anti-gun clowns like speedy intentionally misread the 2nd Amendment to advance their anti-gun agenda. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Now you are out-and-out lying. I have never said that the 2nd Amendment did not guarantee individual gun ownership. I have never given my opinion on what the 2nd Amendment does or does not say.

I do question anyone who says "I know exactly what the 2nd Amendment says."

So-called "anti-gun clowns" like myself simply want to keep weapons that exist only for the killing of other human beings out of the hands of people. An M-16 meets that definition in my opinion. As does the bump stock. The AR-15 has uses other than killing of humans. As do hand guns. I have absolutely no problem with anyone of a certain age who is mentally competent from owning any legal gun. Other than that, I have no anti-gun agenda.

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1060063316]I have no problem with them reading the 2nd Amendment (or any others) how ever they wish to apply them to themselves, but I'm really not interested in their hair brain interpretations to apply them to me.

QUOTE]

That is fine as long as you realize that "them" refers to our elected officials and our court system all the way up to SCOTUS. It is "their hair-brained interpretations" that affect your life. If you disagree with their decisions, the way to show your disapproval is to vote the officials out of office.

[QUOTE=SpeedRacerXXX;1060070543]

I have no problem with them reading the 2nd Amendment (or any others) how ever they wish to apply them to themselves, but I'm really not interested in their hair brain interpretations to apply them to me.

QUOTE]

That is fine as long as you realize that "them" refers to our elected officials and our court system all the way up to SCOTUS. It is "their hair-brained interpretations" that affect your life. If you disagree with their decisions, the way to show your disapproval is to vote the officials out of office. Originally Posted by LexusLover

As long as you realize I interpret what I say, and you don't, we'll be fine. You are one of the "them" about whom I am talking. It doesn't matter to me, personally, what their interpretation is if it restricts my possession of a firearm by some fantasy interpretation of the 2nd amendment and pretending to "know" what the "founding fathers" were thinking even they they did and said differently.

For instance: you apparently think the 2nd amendment only protects firearms that are NOT for the purpose of killing people! That's the kind of hair brain interpretation about which I mentioned. The firearm(s) I have and have had for my self-protection and the protection of anyone in the household in which I find myself is for one purpose: shooting anyone who comes at us unannounced and uninvited.... if they die so be it.

The government doesn't give me the "right" to possess a firearm.

Again that's where yours and my philosophies collide.

It also collides with Liberal thinking in that regard .... that the 2nd amendment protects only hunting weapons. It doesn't just protect "hunting weapons"!

So-called "anti-gun clowns" like myself simply want to keep weapons that exist only for the killing of other human beings out of the hands of people. An M-16 meets that definition in my opinion. As does the bump stock. The AR-15 has uses other than killing of humans. As do hand guns. I have absolutely no problem with anyone of a certain age who is mentally competent from owning any legal gun. Other than that, I have no anti-gun agenda.
[/COLOR][/COLOR] Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

ALL guns exist for the sole purpose of ending human life. Don't fool yourself. Everything else is just an excuse to blow shit up in the interim.

Absolutely no law however, will do what you want. They only cause hassles for the rest of us.

Let's make a law the requires every crazy fuck to make a sign exclaiming their intentions to kill folks 3 days prior.

That will do as good as any gun law that can be written.