Skip to main content

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ensbb3

But I am definitely not interested in forcing you into adopting an opinion.
You're hilariously dumb at times.
What can the North Korean do against an armed American with a Colt 45....

They're screwed.  :D
But you did not give any glimpse, no news whatsoever.
I tried describing the stance you seem to want to debate.
The need for a militia isn't a deciding factor in the right to do so. E.g. "Shall not be infringed" follows the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The meaning comes from the need of the people to raise a militia and the fact that the weapons were restricted by the British. Not exhausting a list of do's and don'ts is also part of the document. It's not meant to limit by it's wording. That's done in interpretation. Should a "free State" need defending the people have the right to be prepared.
Then I tried to explain that you have to look elsewhere for more information on how to interpret the wording. You got a little hung up on it tho.
You are good at one thing: Hiding your personal opinion.
I wanted discuss regulations and what works in other places. Even offering a chance for you to help forge my opinion. We've discussed this topic many times. I tend to be more pragmatic on the subject. I think you just wanna yell at Smiley. God love 'em, he has added some of the details of what I mentioned at least.
The only one labeling me a constitutionalist is you. I've said what it meant and given a glimpse into how that's changed. If you infer anything else it's on you.

Rights, human or otherwise, always have limits. Having rights is not a matter of a (single) piece of paper. It's a matter of reaffirming them as appropriate, in both word and deed which are two different things.
That's literally what I've been saying has happened over the last 200 years here.

Indoctrinating yourself that there's that constitution and therefore you have rights is very very strange. But it's probably to be expected when you grow up pleading allegiance to a flag every day. For example in Soviet Union schools there were no oaths to be sworn. Not daily, not even yearly. And some say that was a totalitarian country.
No matter what I simply get a pejorative narrative. Using semantics to maintain your own conclusions seems like some sort of oath of yours. I get it. You don't agree with anything American. (Slow clap) Good for you.

If that's all this is, I have to say, I just don't give a fuck. You give me no reason to.

*edit* usual grammatical clean up. :-\
You should pay more attention to how lawyers use the word "idea". They use it to turn things on their head.
Lawyers will say anything, that's their job. :P

So you are saying that the "security of a free State" is about the security of an idea?
No. I'm saying a "Free State" differs from just a State or Governing Establishment. It speaks to the type of State. The idea of what free is can be defined by a collection of principles in this case. (Namely the Bill of Rights.)

Does not limit what exactly? It says "well regulated" there, doesn't it?
The Bill of Rights does not limit the rights of people - It does the exact opposite and defines limits on the government. At no point can the wording be taken to limit the people's rights. So "well regulated" means for that reason, for sure, but doesn't limit it to that alone. This really isn't that hard to understand.

And as it is, aren't gun rights regulated by law in your country? Particularly in the sense of being restricted to certain types of guns and limiting their use to certain types of situations.
By a later amendment and, courtesy of the 10th, by the States. Causality. I don't understand why people take it as a static document. I get Smiley's reason. There are just some misled to believe the Constitution is some sort of holy document despite the fact laws have changed aspects of its meaning over the centuries. They tend to be quite vocal. Most consider it what it is - a framework. Something to build off of. The Bill of Rights was added because some felt the government needed clearly defined limits. People forget it wasn't included originally. But was added to clearly define rights not limit them in any way. Limits came later.

when you overblow and idealise the concept of Bill of Rights[...]
And this seems to be where non-Americans stop. I sometimes wonder if other countries just don't have anything they stand for. I mean are human rights not important? No one considers they should be defended? That's really all there is to it. A list of what rights a free person should expect... If someone tries to infringe you should resist. And yes, our own government does do it. That's why you hear it brought up so often, to debate whether or not policy change is worth the perceived danger. The Bill of Rights is a warning from people who left European governments of the time behind.

I've on multiple occasions tried to explain American interpretations of our laws. Every time I get some push back about how over idealistic and silly it all is. So, WTF is so great about other governments? What makes having defining principles in government so silly? Do you really not have any? If you do, what are they? I may agree it's a better philosophy. I don't have the time to micro analyse every government. Some sort of starting point would help. I usually get stuff like "we have a wider democracy[tm rjhowie]". Okay, a solid belief, but unsubstantiated.

Guns are the citizen's protection against bad government (as argued by @ensbb3 )
To be fair - I was mainly giving the reason the second amendment exists. Despite any over zealous proclamations, no one is gonna stand up to the government with force and win. The concept is outdated. Although it's not entirely impossible for an unforeseen future. Best to never rule anything out - Which is the whole point, I think.
The States' rights to regulate has also been upheld.
Quote from: Smiley
Applying modern day logic & definitions will ALWAYS lead you down the wrong path.
It's the only path. Causality and such. Otherwise there wouldn't be other amendments.
ignorance and void your corner has.
If we're doing Yoda quotes, I'm going with - "Do or Do not, there is no try."
According to the amendment, the militia is necessary for the security of the state.
A "Free State" represents an idea. You may of over simplified there. To defend a "Free State" is to defend the principles not the land.

The Constitution had already been written and now the Congress was debating the amendments. Any Brits in the Congress?
Either you misread me or I am you, but that seems to be a non sequitur.

To *have guns* is not the same thing as *bear arms*. One is owning them, the other is to carry them around. The other is for the militia, insofar as the amendment is concerned, and the militia is to be regulated, it requires specific types of guns, not any random types, so guns have to be regulated too, when you bear them.
Again, interpretation agrees... In some States... That open carry is unnecessary. But the wording does not limit. That is what can be debated in law but even that is mostly left up to individual States. Some are tougher than others but Constitutionally the Feds are supposed to leave open ended interpretation to the States - subject to the Supreme Court's rulings. If you're struggling with why things are - keep reading the document. Each amendment has it's own interpretation and some you'll be willing to accept as obvious although not explicitly stated. They each play off each other to give you a feel of the document's meaning. A meaning that can and has changed. That's why it's not so much a list of definitives and their defining qualities as principles to be held up first.

Just amusing to observe how an idea can get out of hand and be touted to be constitutional with original intent
Agreed, so long as you don't let that amusement lead to considering the actual meaning a joke.
Oh, this topic got away from me. I meant to participate more. If time allows I'll revisit, but for now...

We now know that some claim that "bear arms" can be idiomatic, implying an organised militia, but we don't have to take their word for it because it says "well regulated militia" right there in the same sentence.

The need for a militia isn't a deciding factor in the right to do so. E.g. "Shall not be infringed" follows the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The meaning comes from the need of the people to raise a militia and the fact that the weapons were restricted by the British. Not exhausting a list of do's and don'ts is also part of the document. It's not meant to limit by it's wording. That's done in interpretation. Should a "free State" need defending the people have the right to be prepared. Given you don't hand someone a gun and suddenly they are a soldier, owning a gun for other means is the best way to provide innate proficiency. 

Regulation is Constitutional based on interpretation. If we were to simplify it as requested then at no time for any reason can you restrict access to guns. It simply says, in modern speak; Given the potential need of the people to form a defense force, they need guns, and no one should take them so as to prevent it. That idea is passed down and translates to: If they try to take your ability to defend yourself you are not in a "Free State". If anything it confirms the right to have guns and form civil defense forces.

That's the idea you're fighting with the second amendment crowd, not the wording of the document as much as the meaning they were taught. Not wrongly taught either. How that works in a modern context may feel different - Like who needs a militia to be "well regulated"? Insurgents seem to do pretty well without such an extensive hierarchy - But the idea is sound.

*edit* damn I swear my kybd skips letters I type. It's not me! :whistle:
Maybe they can take your opinion away next? It seems to be causing you distress. Your government treats you like children by taking everything away from you. Your police get stabbed - or have to surrender streets to hooligans because they can't even defend themselves and you think they can protect you? Bombs seem to go off there more than we have shootings. And your media force feeds you the idea that disarming your populace somehow makes you safe. What kind of child mind does it take to believe you need someone to hold your hand and keep you safe?

Your system isn't the only way to proceed. Degrading other systems to justify your own shortcomings seems to be your only weapon left. Legislation to control guns within reason can be found. Our system does not allow disarming the populace without substantial changes to the Constitution. That you surrender to your own government so easily makes you no better off. That you are actually the one suffering from a superiority complex while I'm the one with a gun is hilarious and only serves to prove the immature attitude that led to removing anything that you can hurt someone with from your possession. I do the same with small children.

Without the social programs in place your prohibition on weapons wouldn't work. You are far too indoctrinated into the idea that people shouldn't have guns to understand what a fool you are for claiming you know the solution. 
AR-15 to unleash a rain [...] consisting of thousands of rounds like he did.

Well sorta. The barrel wouldn't last that long. But that brings me to another point.

Nothing about this makes much sense, nor will it ever to anyone sane, however the reporting on this has been completely ridiculous. I've literally heard it all; He had 10 to 42 no wait, 23 guns. He shot for 5 to 15 (or longer?) minutes. It took police an hour to get to him - they got there 'quickly'. He killed himself when police got to the door - no, before they got there. (And there's way more social media blunders. Most I can forgive in the moment, but require proper retraction.)

The media has handled this with the same restraint as the shooter. Blasting everything hoping they hit something. Anyone that thinks they know what would of stopped this, at this point, is being foolish. It's easy to say this should not happen. Filled with misinformation one might even conclude they know how they could of prevented it. Even though someone wanting to stop him and how to avoid it was surely just as big a concern to the shooter as how to modify his weapons, illegally, to do the job. Other attacks have done more damage without the weapons he had. The systematic societal causes that leads to such insane situations isn't limited to gun violence or the US. Gun violence is the US's version of it, sure. We could use more comprehensive qualifications, sure. The sale of fertilizer is regulated but legal and diesel fuel is cheap... It's illegal to put them together and ignite the mix. It's also illegal to kill/attack people. So what's hard is determining a solution without jumping to conclusions. Without just shifting the type of attacks down the road to something that can't be identified or stopped with proper analysis of actions for the fleeting illusion of safety now. Finding legislation that provides the social services to prevent people from wanting to hurt other people seems never to be a solution worth investigating. At least if they finally take the guns well have to deal with the fact that doesn't work.
Texans who wanted out of the Union.
I mean, the last time it was an option they left.
No doubt they would be a minority whilst at the same time there seemed a bit of a presumptuous Texas attitude.
Well they are aware of the benefits of being one of the wealthiest States in such a Union too. But you wouldn't have to talk to many of them before learning that and every other thing great about Texas. Friendly tho... Oh, and cowboy garb is not a costume there.
I lived there. Then spent weeks out of every summer there after that, tagging along with the old man on business trips. It was a good chance to get away and enjoy some freedom in my teens. I was unaware I was being disparaging. It's a fine place. I like it. I just don't think they need any convincing they could go it alone.
Wonder if they had PR in Texas how many would vote "out."?
Ever been to Texas? They are pretty convinced they are on their own already. "The Lone Star State" is an attitude.
It's all really quite technical, you see. :left:
oh noes! who put this egg on my face!? Ahh! It's like my face is a skillet! Who opened these dozen eggs here? Ah, the burn! It burns!!

Could you do me one more thing..?
Having failed your own advice...

"Quit you like men:be strong"
Could you fix the spacing in this?

Grammatically incorrect hypocrisy is where I must draw the line.
Totally innocent sailors killed and 4 state-of-the-art warships not run right and we get this stuff??
Well we sure as shit didn't get much from you. Others have cobbled together what you think you're talking about. Not that you'd ever overstate anything, but your spine has apparently deteriorated from sitting in front of the television so much.

A 22yr old destroyer perhaps isn't "state-of-the-art" but shouldn't be colliding with other ships nonetheless. If you want to read the report:
USS Fitzgerald Report
Who hit whom is a bit of a hmm[?]. It was at night and everything seemed legit until a cargo ship crashed thru the side. Not sure on maritime right of way and such, guess I'll have to wait for the investigation to conclude.
"The loss of seven shipmates is a tragedy beyond words and a reminder of the danger inherent in the mission of every ship and Sailor."  Seems fitting enough. They did sign up for that possibility even though no one wished it on them.
Capt. Joseph Carrigan was relieved due to a "loss of confidence" in his ability to command by Rear Adm. Charles Williams, commander of Task Force 70, according to a Navy statement from U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii on Wednesday.
Something you want me to add to that? Did you know or just pretending nothing was being done?
The commander of the Navy's Japan-based 7th Fleet was fired last week after a series of accidents this year raised questions about its operations.

The firing of Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, a three-star admiral, was a rare dismissal of a high-ranking officer for operational reasons.
And look they got the admiral too.

Like your posts mine didn't really have much to do with the topic. I made it clear enough I thought it sounded dumb.

P.S. I didn't look up the one that collided with a fishing boat. It's not that I didn't care, I just thought if you grew a backbone you might actually want to do your own work.
Odd, I know that as "what shall we do with the drunken sailor." Besides that I think it's the same. Probably.

I've heard it both ways. "What will* we do"sounds more right to me... so is prolly wrong, lol. Gotten into sea shanties lately. Inspired by some recent boat outings I suppose. I like this one better:

Oh dear. How cold* this come to be? Too many diplomats! The shame. The horror!

*Edit: Could
Now Russia has done what the USA did
Now Russia has done what it always does? Well, if none end up dead I guess there's a difference from the norm.
I wouldn't sell mine. There are no laws preventing its misuse.
Are the USA preparing for biological warfare?
Given the USAF does research with other agencies, that seems like a big jump. Or more appropriately, pulled out of nowhere. Could just be a matter of who's budget it comes out of.
Wonder if anyone on these forums could top such a dumb statement?
:no: Easy. You'll provoke our resident Trump apologist.  :insane: 
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
We're the ones who created the trade rules that favors us, the world banking system that gives us preferment.
Actually we use the British system of banking.