Briefly, bullshit.

You and I have rights, irrespective of how well-strapped we are, not, *emphatically not* because either of us is armed. We enjoy those rights because of our shared respect for our rule of law.

Having a gun does not grant you any rights, it doesn't even protect your rights. Only that shared respect for law protects you and your rights. When you lose those rights, when they've been stolen from you by violence, the gun hasn't saved you, and if that violence came from the muzzle of a gun, it was the lack of respect for the rule of law that created the opening through which they were lost.

No amount of firepower "you yourself" can muster can "enforce" your rights. Somewhere, someone has a bigger gun and smaller scruples. Where is your puny <strike>gun</strike> god now? Your rights, and mine, are like the right of way at stop sign. You can't seize the right of way, you can only have it yielded to you. If you assert and I assert, only conflict results. I suppose this is where you draw and fire; win! Unless I draw first.

Maybe you really don't understand that such a dispute over rights is solvable, only solvable by laws. If so, hit the books, you have a lot of catching up to do. If you're really just pretending, then your willful ignorance is the problem you need to address first.

:corn:

@ Flint: Ikr?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ntent=20180423

Interview with James Shaw.

Excellent, Griff!!
I remember getting to the speedshop where I worked the counter after my day job. a wall to the right hid a half door where I'd turn to get behind the counter. Where I got there a black man in camos shoved a 1911 in my belly and growled.
It only took a few seconds to realize he was a friend, who worked for the Post Office, a DI in the Army Reserve, and was fucking with me. But those few seconds were a long long long time.

What bothers me now is the antigun crowd has become just as rabid as the hard core gun nuts. They've been recruited from the city kids who don't know guns from shinola. There is no reasonable discourse, just fer me or agin me on both sides.

If gun control people were as rabid as the NRA, quite a few gun control laws would be passed easily. There are plenty of gun control laws that are quite popular, but there are few single-issue (to use your term ,"rabid") gun control voters.

I think the antis are just as rabid, but not one issue.

If you're not willing to ignore all other issues in favor of it, you're not as rabid.

Seems that there could be equal; but, opposite rabidities on one issue independent of other issues and regardless of whether or not other issues exist.

YMMV.

Not even close. There was no need for gun laws until NRA, et al starting pushing bigger guns, big magazines, and hardware that has no purpose but to kill people. Only then the the majority finally realized how ridiculous all that gun fascination was.

If the resulting and necessary up-swell did not exist, then gun owners would be buying M79 grenade launchers and 155 millimeter howitzers. Since the NRA has only one purpose. Lobby to increase gun sales. The NRA is a lobbyist for the gun industry.

Why did the NRA get research into gun violence banned? Resulting knowledge would harm sales. Selling hype, myths, and fear further increases sales. We all need 100 round clips.

Even bump stocks were good for business - approved of by the NRA until Las Vegas happened. NRA remains on the fence for banning those. Fearing it might harm sales.

they may have to be more rabid, on account of that thing in the founding document of the government - remember

~ but with this shitty rabid mob versus rabid mob tribalist approach I'm sure the fucking Constitution will soon be on the outs anyway. ~

No, I said gun control. Not banning all guns. There's no right enumerated in the Constitution that has no regulation. Nor should there be.

i'm sorry but the bit in the founding document says "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be removed entirely"

infringed: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

Seeing as there is no numeric scale that scientifically measures how much you care about an issue, "willing to ignore all other issues in favor of it" is, in my view, the maximum amount you can care.

:::long, exhausted sigh:::
and what is it that shall not be infringed upon?
the right to..
to..

what was it..?

a well R E G U L A T E D militia ??

was that it?

different meaning of regulated, perhaps, mr. constitutions professor?

It also says that Congress "shall make no law" restricting the "free exercise" of religion, but that doesn't mean you can go Old Testament on somebody.

Donations by individuals to the NRA are at a 15 year high.

Thank you rabid gun control advocates. First you got The Donald elected President and now you're making the NRA more powerful than ever.

Carry on carrying on.

Yes, the 1791 definition

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

I thought you were trying to support Bruce's point... Yeah, I don't dispute that the NRA has a lot of rabid followers.

Anti's undermining their own causes with their furious stage methodologies that get Trump elected and the NRA empowered meet my conception of rabid.

Weird argument. The NRA getting more rabid is proof that both sides are equally rabid.

It's hard to make out what you're trying to say when you're foaming at the mouth like that.

Who was this weeks mass murder of the week? It was not asked 20 years ago when we were less a safe due to less guns and no military caliber munitions.

Did I remember to thank you? I shall do so now for you have done more than anyone else in this community to get Donald Trump elected President and empower the NRA. Your unwavering piety and pomposity has contributed immensely to the downfall of ideas you represent and made you the quintessential enabler of opposing positions.

Thank you, thank you so very much.

I'm curious about this source, but their 'About' link is a 404 Error :sweat:

The Meaning of "well regulated militia" section of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article in Wikipedia actually does contain some excerpts of Supreme Court deliberation on the matter.



But I'm sure the Oxford English Dictionary is a better source of legal wisdom. :rolleyes:

[quote=Flint;1007565]I'm curious about this source, but their 'About' link is a 404 Error :sweat:

works for me http://www.constitution.org/about.htm

It was just the first link I noticed that explained the 1791 definition.

Dude, it's a dictionary entry, and some random guy's blog opinion.

Wikipedia is one click away. Plenty of Supreme Court discussion regarding how to interpret the meaning. One click. I tagged the section.

"well-regulated" summary of Oxford via constitution.org: "[the] property of something being in proper working order"

then per Wikipedia: The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[169] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Proper training, so as for a group to be in proper working order. These definitions are roughly equivalent. I could have used either one.

Cos they're both different from your exasperated sigh R E G U L A T E D definition, am I correct?

No, that definition is fine.

As far as I know, that is all anyone is asking for.

The exasperated sigh is: when you ask for the imposition of proper discipline and training, there is a very vocal, very hyperbolic faction of our society that immediately makes the hyper-space jump to "the government / liberal media is going to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY" --so, as a compromise, we agree to do nothing. And we quibble over dictionary definitions that we don't disagree on.

Extremists will always resort to personal insults. How many hours did you spend with your thesaurus?

Instead, learn what antinarcissism is. Donald Trump is so much like you.

Or you could answer the question. What is the mass shooting for this week? That would be an adult reply.

You got the reply you bargained for. If you begin to function WNL, you might get the replies you ask for. Otherwise, learn to accept that you'll always be on the losing side.

More cheapshots from one who is best known here for attacking others with insults.

You have no currency here. You're on the losing side of every issue you discuss. You oppose Trump; but, Trump becomes President. You oppose the NRA; but, the NRA is thriving. Who's going to place stock in a losing proposition? These are the facts. The only thing left to discuss is you and why tw is always losing when even someone like Charlie Sheen is winning!

UT, you incorrectly assumed that I would disagree with your definition. I don't. By all means let's further the conversation with a snarky GIF you fucking pompous dickbag.

I thought you were an extremist.

Since undertoad has Tapped Out, can someone point me to the NRAs initiatives to implement the imposition of proper discipline and training, and compare that to gun control Advocates initiatives to implement the imposition of proper discipline and training, and tell me which one of these two groups is using the proper 1791 definition of the term well regulated??

I'll leave you to ponder whether the definition of imposition describes a voluntary action with no accountability mechanism.

[quote=Flint;1007604]...can someone point me to the NRAs initiatives to implement the imposition of proper discipline and training... [quote]

Get the fuck outta here. :rolleyes:

And you assumed I was a very vocal, very hyperbolic faction of our society that immediately makes the hyper-space jump...

I am fine with gun control. Honestly.

If you go back in the thread, I was pointing out that, if it's harder for one side to make progress on this movement, it's not the rabidity, it's the Constitution.

That was our topic. That was "the conversation" we were furthering. But you made it into the argument you wanted to have, with the opponent you wanted to pick a fight with. Not me, but a caricature opponent.

Good luck with all that. Don't pretend it's real conversation. Whatever you're playing at, it's not conversation.

Nobody needs guns that shoot NATO rounds (ie AR-15). Those exist for only one purpose - to kill people.

A true sportsman fires once, takes the gun off his shoulder, puts it back up, and then fires again. If you can't do that and hit the target every time, then a sportsman needs practice; must do that many more times.

Not clear which 'you' is discussed.

Meanwhile where was this week's mass killing?

You're killing us with your ignorance of what constitutes a true sportsman.

Shouldering a firearm, firing, lowering the firearm and repeating the procedure may not allow for a quick enough follow-up shot if necessary. Only a complete ignoramus expects one shot to work every time with real world variables. The method described; however, can still be done with a semi-automatic. A true sportsman does practice. Practice often costs money in range time. Sportsmen don't want to spend that time at the range they're paying for reloading. They don't need to practice reloading. They're there to practice shooting and time is money. They also know that shot placement is more important than caliber and that NATO rounds are economical fodder for practice.

Tw, you're cranky-stupid again, go take a nap.

No. No, I didn't. I said those people exist and cause difficulty.

Go back and read it, you're wrong. Twice in this thread you've made wildly wrong assumptions *that you're so pompously certain are correct*

You have an objectivity problem.

OK fine. So your point to me about rabidity and gun control is what. What's your point, out of all the posts you've made.

Why don't you tell me, buddy? Wait, you already did. You packaged the answer right there inside the question. What's my point about the thing that you just told me is what I'm talking about? Masturbator.

Alrighty. Well you win, I'm out.

wait is was rabidity

No, NATO rounds are designed to wound people. A wounded enemy takes one or two, sometimes more, enemy out of the battle to tend him/her.
NATO rounds are too small for most game hunting, only good for practice.

NATO rounds will even penetrate light armour. A problem for amphibious armour used by the Marines.

NATO rounds will penetrate cars. And two LA bank robbers demonstrated when shooting through cars to hit so many policemen.

NATO rounds will blow through game doing massive damage. Hunters use smaller caliber munitions - not NATO rounds.

No civilian needs guns that fire military munitions - NATO rounds. Those exist only to kill people. Not wound them. Kill them.

Where was this week's mass shootings?

The .223 Remington round is the same as 5.56mm NATO round.

That does not appear to be the case.

ut, which NATO round, the 5.56mm NATO round fired from the same rifle as the .223?

I agree, terribly dangerous, civilians should stick to the old safe 30:06, or maybe 45:70. :lol2:

Trying to demonize the use of NATO spec. ammo is a fools errand, sensationalism used by whacko leftist extremists to delude an uneducated audience.

Military ammo is not designed to be more lethal than its civilian counterparts. NATO ammo actually makes compromises in lethality to effect a reduction in maiming (less fragmentation), make for greater portability (lighter weight) and easier marksmanship training of soldiers (less recoil). It's loaded to higher pressures to increase reliability in cycling firearm mechanisms under adverse conditions, not to be more lethal. Many civilian hunting rounds are potentially more lethal (all else being equal) than NATO rounds which can actually be more humane.

There are specialty rounds like armor piercing bullets designed to defeat body armor (bullet proof vests). Soldiers may find that their enemy is wearing body armor. Civilian criminals have also worn body armor during the commission of crimes. Hunters may find that those bullets better negotiate intermediate obstacles like leaves on branches with less deviation from their target. These are not; however, magic bullets and can be less lethal in their target because they don't expand on impact. They just give the bullet a better chance of reaching the target. Marksmanship is more important. This has all been well documented for decades. Only a neophyte wouldn't know this.

NATO ammunition and the firearms chambered for it could be the more humane choice for those who achieve the necessary skill in marksmanship and that skill is transferable between military, police, and civilian walks of life.

Minor difference exist. But the bottom line remains. Its purpose is to kill people. Even the .223 was designed for that purpose.

These are not rifles for sportsman. These are for the thrill of killing people - in reality or just to pretend on a rifle range. Neither reasons justifies these guns - and the so many who do kill because these completely unnecessary weapons inspire it.

So what was the massacre of the week?

That's a lie evidenced by the fact that you can't get 2/3 of the eligible vote to change the Constitution to accommodate your delusion. You still believe the right to own these things requires further justification. It doesn't. All you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating that you're incapable of understanding their place in society and how changes in American society works. You're still that same old developmentally impaired misfit.

I would suggest that if you are going to have these arguments learn basic facts so the other side doesn't derail your arguments. It is a common tactic used when control advocates use sloppy terminology like "assault rifle". My rifle shoots a larger round than the AR-15. It is meant to kill large game with one round. The heavy kick is a reminder of the seriousness of what I'm engaged in. Learn about the weapons and focus on what you (and many of us) believe makes them inappropriate for civilian use like semi-automatic fire, high capacity magazines, and ammunition appropriate for war and targets but not for big game hunting.

Griff, his eyes open.

Allow me to demonstrate how important this is:

[Rhetorical] What is the purpose of military small arms and ammunition?

[Paraphrasing] XoB says it's to wound and thereby further burden the opposition with caring for the wounded.

[Paraphrasing] Tw says it's only to kill.

The purpose of military small arms and ammunition is to incapacitate, to render someone who was a combatant a noncombatant, whether they live or die is secondary. This is evidenced by the Laws of Land Warfare.

If you shoot and wound an opponent; but, they continue hostilities, you can legally continue to shoot them until they cease hostilities even if it kills them. Wounding is not the primary objective.

If you shoot and wound an opponent who then ceases hostilities, you cannot legally continue to shoot them until you have killed them. Killing is not the primary objective.

Military small arms and ammunition are designed around incapacitation in adherence with the Laws of Land Warfare and reflected in their tradeoffs in lethality for other considerations (e.g. non-maiming ammunition).

There's been many a soldier who's wished that their small arms were designed only to kill; but, that's not the way it is in reality.

There are rare exceptions for elite military units that have narrowly defined missions which require the assured instant incapacitation that killing an opponent provides. They use specialized firearms and ammunition.

US policy and the international agreements to which we're signatory prohibit designing military small arms and ammunition only for killing; unless, there's a consensus that a specific situation falls outside the parameters of conventional warfare.

Claims that military small arms and ammunition are designed only for killing are categorically discredited; but, that doesn't stop the ignorant from making those claims nor does it stop whacko leftist extremist propagandists from preying on the ignorant who can't be bothered to learn facts.

As Griff said, learn basic facts. It will help keep those like tw from preying on you for their own self aggrandizement.

Subscibed.

Also, good luck.