I Like Posting This!

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by algrace

Those same folks are generally thought to be inclusive of those Some may be called radicals. Some may be more like Timothy McVeigh or Peter Keller than America wants to remember. Unfortunately, our society's stance on the potential for domestic terrorism reminds me a bit of a movie costarring Nick Nolte as an ex-armed forces character. Not all gun enthusiasts are gun nuts, and not many gun nuts are fanatical.

"our society's stance on the potential for domestic terrorism "

Total and complete Bull Shit by an emotional idiot who just doesn't know the facts of life.

Crap!

Let me tell you a few things that I personally know about:

In the 70's, I personally know of 6 attack plans in the US that did not come to completion and three that actually happened. None of this was in the papers, or in the news.

I am one of many who has received weapons training from the military who went back to civilian life with no thoughts of attacking our own country. Total and complete bull shit to think that military training is a cause of an attack on our own country.

I have been taught much more than most who were in the military. This knowledge includes:

Full weapons training
Expert Rifle and Pistol
Heavy Weapons
Gases
Poisons
Biological weapons (yes we have them)

Post military experience include:

weapons research
Explosive consulting
Cleanup of explosives
Production of explosives

So what? What is the point. I don't use this stuff anymore, just like a lot of people. Just because one has the knowledge does not mean that the knowledge will be used against one's own country.

JR

[JD Barleycorn]

I must say in my defense (for the purposes of accuracy) that I never said that the military and militia were the same thing. What I was saying was that in some areas there was no military but there was an organized (see official) militia and in both cases no one told private citizens that they had to have lesser weapons than either group.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Come on guys, does anyone actually have an issue with private citizens having heavy weapons? I strongly believe that self defense is.....



And does anyone really want to argue with some Iowa gals with full auto tools?

[kcbigpapa]

JR, I made one addition to your experience for you since it seems you left it out.

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

Total and complete Bull Shit by an emotional idiot who just doesn't know the facts of life.

Crap!

Let me tell you a few things that I personally know about:

In the 70's, I personally know of 6 attack plans in the US that did not come to completion and three that actually happened. None of this was in the papers, or in the news.

I am one of many who has received weapons training from the military who went back to civilian life with no thoughts of attacking our own country. Total and complete bull shit to think that military training is a cause of an attack on our own country.

I have been taught much more than most who were in the military. This knowledge includes:

Full weapons training
Expert Rifle and Pistol
Heavy Weapons
Gases
Poisons
Biological weapons (yes we have them)

Post military experience include:

weapons research
Explosive consulting
Cleanup of explosives
Production of explosives
Extreme White Knighting...if you're going to toot your own horn, make sure you are thorough.

So what? What is the point. I don't use this stuff anymore, just like a lot of people. Just because one has the knowledge does not mean that the knowledge will be used against one's own country.

JR

[dumars]

See! I tol' 'ya it'd be entertaining! Especially Mr. Lawrence! Extreme bad ass, according to him, but no mention having ever been fired on by anybody.

For my part, I've undergone much the same but like I've told a few cops, "you haven't lived until you've been fired on by a large caliber machine gun! Encourages you to perform incredible, world class athletic feats you didn't think you were capable of!"

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by dumars

See! I tol' 'ya it'd be entertaining! Especially Mr. Lawrence! Extreme bad ass, according to him, but no mention having ever been fired on by anybody.

For my part, I've undergone much the same but like I've told a few cops, "you haven't lived until you've been fired on by a large caliber machine gun! Encourages you to perform incredible, world class athletic feats you didn't think you were capable of!"

Nope, you got it wrong. I do remember one idiot I met in Marine Corps. When I asked him, "why did you join the Corps?"; his answer was: "to learn how to be a bad ass." A few days later, I saw him swing a sledge hammer on a pile of rocks that was put in the middle of the company area. Everyone got to see him make little rocks out of big rocks.

No, as some of the ladies say: I am just an old sweetheart. But, I do have values.

You missed the point of the discussion. It was about why pick out one idiot who blew up an Oklahoma Federal Building, and ignore the millions of trained former military men and women who did not? When one does that the loyalty of every present and former military person is insulted.

You sound like the news people who just want to grab your attention with idiot ideas. But, they know nothing.

Think about it.

Semper fidelis is a Latin phrase that means "always faithful" or "always loyal". In the United States it is best known as the motto of the United States Marine Corps.

JR

[dumars]

Opinions are like ass holes and your ass stinks worst than mine, according to me. And I am an authority on what my ass smells like. Just so you know, Jack Shit is a personal friend of mine.

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

You sound like the news people who just want to grab your attention with idiot ideas. But, they know nothing.

[dumars]

"Worst" . . . ?

[algrace]

why pick out one idiot who blew up an Oklahoma Federal Building, and ignore the millions of trained former military men and women who did not? When one does that the loyalty of every present and former military person is insulted.

Gosh, I hadn't stepped up to the plate with the intention to... I said unfortunately because I don't share the popular stance and furthermore am saddened by the way media presents many scenarios involving violence.

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

"our society's stance on the potential for domestic terrorism "

Total and complete Bull Shit by an emotional idiot who just doesn't know the facts of life.

Crap!
... Just because one has the knowledge does not mean that the knowledge will be used against one's own country.

JR

I'm not sure who the emotional idiot is you speak of, but in the potential fight for liberties we may not realize are being beseiged, I know it is in the public's best interests to have a strongly supported second amendment backed by trained, experienced armed forces regardless how long ago.

Did this part make any sense?

Not all gun enthusiasts are gun nuts, and not many gun nuts are fanatical.

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

And that context must be based on the understanding of the "historical" terminology that was in use in the late 1700's.
Which understanding includes the common acceptance that at that time.

This is where you guys always fuck up.

First you define a word or phrase based on what the READER at that time would have understood those words to mean.

Then, when it suits your argument, you define words to mean what the AUTHOR likely meant. That involves cherry picking words from cherry picked founding fathers or framers. (Anything that was an issue with the founding fathers always had TWO SIDES, so there were always other founding fathers that thought your guy was full of shit.). These first two involve guessing the thoughts of long dead people who didn't have a clue about our modern world.

Then, when talk turns to muskets, you all switch gears and re-define words to mean what a 21st century person would understand 'firearms' to mean.

Understand that if your argument depends on using three various random ways to define words and guessing the thoughts of ghost...your argument is as weak as your morals. I might as well argue with thieves.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Pull up the history Longer, it is that clear.
Weapons were so common back then, it's simply amusing that folks nowadays simply don't understand that.

[lawyerinjeans]

Grampa once told me "Don't argue with folks whose minds you stand no chance of changing. It's a waste of your time." This is usually the case when the 2nd amendment is being "discussed". I wish only to correct some "history" that has been offered to support some of positions stated. First, the second amendment was added in deference to some states concern that there would be a large standing national army that would, or could endanger the individual states themselves. The states were much more autonomous back then. The complete text states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The language omitted so far in this thread "necessaary to the security of a free state..." makes plain that the amendment's purpose. It was to protect the security of a free state, didn't have shit to do with self-defense. The fact is the amendment has been hijacked by the NRA and gun hobbiest. Justice Stevens once wrote that historical and true intention of the second amendment could be understood if the framers had just stated what they believed to be implied by the text of the amendment. Justice Stevens said the framers meaning and intent of the second amendment would require no interpretation if they had just included the words they thought were unnecessary because they were so obviously implied. The second amendment was intended to be read as: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” The right of self defense has always been a part of the "natural law" so its absurd to believe the second amendment was written for purposes of insuring the right to possess "arms" for self defense purposes. It is a different argument to say that "I need a gun for self defense" than to say "The Constitution gives me the right to own a gun for self defense." As a Navy Corpsman attached to the Marines in Viet Nam, I shot a lot of people in self defense so to speak. So I know that all the training in the world ain't gonna prepare anyone to calmly pick up their gun out of the bedside table and shoot and kill their first person, whether its an intruder, or a family member sneaking in late. You pull the gun out of the table because you are afraid. You are scared for your family. 90% of those in that situation will be unable to control their shaking hands. They will pull the trigger of their handgun and miss some one standing 15 feet away in the door way by 3 feet. The loud explosion and/or the recoil of the first shot will cause a good percentage to drop the damn gun. And there is a very good chance of getting killed in your first "shoot out" pursuing someone that is also armed. I'm just saying there is a big fucking difference is shooting someone in theory, and actually killing someone with a gun. I've just never want to shoot anyone ever again. I don't want or need a gun. But that's me and I respect everyone else's thoughts to the contrary. I only write because I think the "activist" Supreme Court interpreted language that needed no interpretation, or as Chief Justice Burger once said, the second amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

[Marcus Aurelius]

[Unique_Carpenter]

Ah, lij,
It is rare someone a-muse-s me that has certain knowledge of how to write briefs

Originally Posted by lawyerinjeans

... The second amendment was intended to be read as: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” The right of self defense has always been a part of the "natural law" so its absurd to believe the second amendment was written for purposes of insuring the right to possess "arms" for self defense purposes. It is a different argument to say that "I need a gun for self defense" than to say "The Constitution gives me the right .”

But the amendment was executed without your addin. Thus, we are left with the plain meaning that folks do have a constitutional right. And the courts recognize that.
Is a self defense a natural right? Of course it is. So why do gun control advicates try to restrict that right? Or restrict weapons ownership in general? We are fortunate that the 2nd is what is is.

I will admit that some weapons are military based and probably not appropriate for a civie population. And yes in a large paragraph you do make a valid presentation of a classic homeowner situation. But simply, that all goes to appropriate training. I disagree with your comment about all the training won't prepare. ..
Frankly, the correct training will. But I will admit that type of training is rare and sadly lacking in the quick permit classes.
Guns are to kill. Not scare someone off. Thus, don't have one, unless you clearly grasp that concept, and can score 90s in various situations on a clearly valid target in a clear life self defense situation.

[lawyerinjeans]

Carpenter I appreciate the moderate tone of your response. Given the language of the 2nd amendment, the question that continues to be presented to us as a society is not whether "the people" have a right to possess arms, but what is the right of the state to limit the right to "keep and bear arms"? It is my belief, which is a valid as those holding opposing opinions, that a state can limit this right without infringing on the fundemental right. All rights have some limitations (Can't yell fire in a theater; Can't own a bazooka, or automatic firing weapon) so the question is to what degree can the state who is charged with protecting ALL the citizens, limit the right of those who carry a weapon only for their own defense? I would certainly prefer not to see open carry. If I am in a room of 100 people, and 40 are carrying side arms, I do not feel safer than if no one had a gun. Again, this is just my own feelings based on my personal experiences. With full appreciation of your position, I think that you would have to admit that the NRA with huge monetary contributions from weapons manufactures, stir the pot on this issue. Every election cycle, there is a great dust up about the democrats wanting to take your weapons. That generates huge increasse in guns sales and donations to (mostly) Republican pols that use the issue for fundrasing. With the long period of time that the Dems controlled the house and senate, and occassionally the WH., if the dems wanted your guns that would have had them already. All the 2nd amendment brew ha is usually associated with marketing from gun manufactures.
One last point, does the SPECIFIC language of the 2nd amendment extend to ammunition? Does the state have a right to retrict the access to ammo?