GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Jimbone]

Fuck you, you are an idiot. Reread my post; quit hearing what you want nd exercise your brain once in a while.

I kind of feel like you hold back too much.

[pyropappy]

I could hardly wait to see what you came back with. You didn't let me down.

Then don't tell lies about my posts.

Case in point, I say you are being lied to by the media and both sides n Washington to distract you from what is really going on.

You hear about Julis Malema and his black nationalist political party Economic Freedom Fighters on the lame stream media? Seems his party is the fastest growing party in South Africa. He introduced legislation to strip the white farmers of their property. He has called for the "masses" to rise up and mutder them all many times.

Question, what will happen to the world economy if the gold and diamond production gets disrupted? Sounds like a good time to divest yourself from DeBeers and buy some raw diamonds because thisplan has worked so well in Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

Facism is on the rise every where; that is Duggins plan, sow chaos every where. WW3 is starting, Russia is going to Attack, not with tanks and guns, but with ones and zeros. Cyberwar fare is coming, you better be ready when the grid goes down.

Had you listened and read "The Coming Insurrection", you would know the plan. I am watching it unfold.

Did the lame stream media report on the Russian ex-pats Putin killed in London? Did they play his response to the accusation?

Here is another undisputable historical fact; the old Soviet Union was brought down by debt. That sound familiar now a days?

Scoff all you want, but hide and watch. The good news is the Pentagon has war gamed this to death; the bad news is they project 100 to 140 million of you won't survive.

[Duchess]

Then don't tell lies about my posts.

...but I didn't lie about your post, Pappy.

[sally]

I think Pyropappy is Ted Nugent.

[BigMark]

On drugs.

[Jimbone]

Maybe he has Cat Scratch Fever?

[F.U.]

As I was surfing the net to try and find the original meaning of the 2^nd, I ran across this and found it interesting. So I thought this may be a good place to post it for discussion.

tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2^nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

2^nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose

When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government.
One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State”
The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.
The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.
For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.
As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.
So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”
And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.
Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.
The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.

[Duchess]

if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.

I haven't seen anyone in here disagree with that. I feel confident in saying we all support the 2^nd amendment.

[F.U.]

if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.

I haven't seen anyone in here disagree with that. I feel confident in saying we all support the 2^nd amendment.

Yes but if you read just above what you quoted, you will see this.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

That portion is currently not happening. While we can currently own fully automatic firearms and sound suppressors etc they are heavily taxed. Now there is talk of banning other types of firearms. That goes directly against the quote I mentioned.

[HairOfTheDog]

That's your interpretation or wish in regard to the meaning of "full possession", F.U. It is not what the Constitution explicitly guarantees.

I see it differently, as does the Supreme Court and much of the population. To me, "full possession" = not having to turn in allowable firearms at the end of the day or end of duty / not having to be under the supervision of government while using allowable firearms. Things of that nature.

It does not mean that all cleared U.S. citizens have a right to possession of any and all firearms, accessories, and ammunition that they can possibly acquire or manufacture. That's why possession of fully automatic weapons is heavily restricted, bump stocks are soon to be banned, gun safes are required in some states, etc. By your interpretation/logic, all of those common sense restrictions are unconstitutional.

Just like it's my right as a U.S. citizen to speak my mind privately and publicly under the First Amendment. However, it is not an absolute right without regulation or restriction. I am not allowed to make death threats, maliciously slander people in a way that infringes on their livelihood or safety, or otherwise engage in public speech that threatens the life and liberty of other U.S. citizens.

[Duchess]

Yes but if you read just above what you quoted, you will see this.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

That portion is currently not happening. While we can currently own fully automatic firearms and sound suppressors etc they are heavily taxed. Now there is talk of banning other types of firearms. That goes directly against the quote I mentioned.

FU, I don't want anyone to have to lose their right to weapons that they may use to defend themselves or their families, nor do I want to take anyone's weapon who may use it to provide for themselves, as in hunting. I don't like citizens having weapons of war, I don't like them having guns that are used specifically for killing people. Why would anyone need to have access to weapons with their only purpose being to kill humans?

[F.U.]

That's your interpretation or wish in regard to the meaning of "full possession", F.U. It is not what the Constitution explicitly guarantees.

I see it differently, as does the Supreme Court and much of the population. To me, "full possession" = not having to turn in allowable firearms at the end of the day or end of duty / not having to be under the supervision of government while using allowable firearms. Things of that nature.

It does not mean that all cleared U.S. citizens have a right to possession of any and all firearms, accessories, and ammunition that they can possibly acquire or manufacture. That's why possession of fully automatic weapons is heavily restricted, bump stocks are soon to be banned, gun safes are required in some states, etc. By your interpretation/logic, all of those common sense restrictions are unconstitutional.

Just like it's my right as a U.S. citizen to speak my mind privately and publicly under the First Amendment. However, it is not an absolute right without regulation or restriction. I am not allowed to make death threats, maliciously slander people in a way that infringes on their livelihood or safety, or otherwise engage in public speech that threatens the life and liberty of other U.S. citizens.

That's not my interpretation, HotD. That's was Zacharia Johnson's. Zacharia Johnson a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

[F.U.]

Duch, I know you have heard it thousands of times, but its the Bill of Rights. Not the bill of needs.
I have mine because they are used for much more than just killing people. That is not their only purpose. I use mine for competition shooting and have several awards in my area with mine. I use them for target shooting, hunting and home protection as well.

[HairOfTheDog]

That's your interpretation or wish in regard to the meaning of "full possession", F.U. It is not what the Constitution explicitly guarantees.

I see it differently, as does the Supreme Court and much of the population. To me, "full possession" = not having to turn in allowable firearms at the end of the day or end of duty / not having to be under the supervision of government while using allowable firearms. Things of that nature.

It does not mean that all cleared U.S. citizens have a right to possession of any and all firearms, accessories, and ammunition that they can possibly acquire or manufacture. That's why possession of fully automatic weapons is heavily restricted, bump stocks are soon to be banned, gun safes are required in some states, etc. By your interpretation/logic, all of those common sense restrictions are unconstitutional.

Just like it's my right as a U.S. citizen to speak my mind privately and publicly under the First Amendment. However, it is not an absolute right without regulation or restriction. I am not allowed to make death threats, maliciously slander people in a way that infringes on their livelihood or safety, or otherwise engage in public speech that threatens the life and liberty of other U.S. citizens.

That's not my interpretation, HotD. That's was Zacharia Johnson's. Zacharia Johnson a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

I understand Johnson's statement, F.U.

But, "full possession of their arms" is not the same as unregulated unrestricted possession of any and all arms.

So, you when claim that it is, it's because you're interpreting his words/intent beyond the actual words themselves.

[F.U.]

That's your interpretation or wish in regard to the meaning of "full possession", F.U. It is not what the Constitution explicitly guarantees.

I see it differently, as does the Supreme Court and much of the population. To me, "full possession" = not having to turn in allowable firearms at the end of the day or end of duty / not having to be under the supervision of government while using allowable firearms. Things of that nature.

It does not mean that all cleared U.S. citizens have a right to possession of any and all firearms, accessories, and ammunition that they can possibly acquire or manufacture. That's why possession of fully automatic weapons is heavily restricted, bump stocks are soon to be banned, gun safes are required in some states, etc. By your interpretation/logic, all of those common sense restrictions are unconstitutional.

Just like it's my right as a U.S. citizen to speak my mind privately and publicly under the First Amendment. However, it is not an absolute right without regulation or restriction. I am not allowed to make death threats, maliciously slander people in a way that infringes on their livelihood or safety, or otherwise engage in public speech that threatens the life and liberty of other U.S. citizens.

That's not my interpretation, HotD. That's was Zacharia Johnson's. Zacharia Johnson a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

I understand Johnson's statement, F.U.

But, "full possession of their arms" is not the same as unregulated unrestricted possession of any and all arms.

So, you when claim that it is, it's because you're interpreting his words/intent beyond the actual words themselves.

I think that since he was someone that was around in those days he would understand what the original intent was much better than anyone that is alive today.

[F.U.]

Here was another item I read today. I like the way they discuss this subject from both sides of the fence.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona...+Amendment

[HairOfTheDog]

I think that since he was someone that was around in those days he would understand what the original intent was much better than anyone that is alive today.

Well, it's too bad that neither you nor I were there and can't time-travel back and ask him and the Founders about their intent directly, F.U.

He and they didn't define 'full possession' to mean unregulated and unrestricted access to any firearm imaginable then (or in the future).

You think or wish that's what they meant and you're therefore interpreting their intent accordingly. Your interpretation is not specified in their actual words.

That's fine and I'm not arguing with your interpretation. I'm simply pointing out that your interpretation of "full possession" is not the same as mine and not the same as the Supreme Court Justices (even the most conservative ones like Scalia) whose job it is to interpret and decide constitutionality of laws. That's the fact of the matter.

[Duchess]

Look who made the cover of TIME. Their march is Saturday in DC and similar marches will be taking place across America as well.

[HairOfTheDog]

Tomorrow I'll be spending a lot of time advising caregivers who use public transportation about how to get their clients' homes on Saturday; the bus routes are going to be a fucking nightmare. But, that's okay by me given the importance of the March For Our Lives.

If I can swing it, I'm gonna walk down to the Civic Center and participate in the march for a bit.

I think the turnout on Saturday will likely be massive in D.C. and other major U.S. cities.

[pyropappy]

How come no one in the lame stream media, nor here has mentioned the latest school shooting in southern Maryland?