GT40s.com Paddock GUNS thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Between societal and technological changes, the 2A will get “infringed” upon further.

And I also think killing animals for sport or food will also go the way of the dinosaurs. A plant-based diet is the future. Meat=heart attacks, strokes and cancer. Now, we’ll all be long gone from this Earth when all this takes place, but that’s the future.
 

Steve

Supporter
Rod, you're assertions regarding animals for food are both unsubstantiated and highly highly unlikely to happen this century, same as your assertions regarding the 2A.
 
And I also think killing animals for sport or food will also go the way of the dinosaurs.
I see hundreds of dinosaur descendants everyday flying around, many of them are VERY tasty! I particularly like the chickensauruses and the turkeysauruses!

I do agree that "sport" hunting will diminish and pretty much disappear over the next couple hundred years. And I also expect that "cellular grown 'meat' products" will become the norm in the future as it will be less expensive to produce and will require fewer resources.
 
Rod, you're assertions regarding animals for food are both unsubstantiated and highly highly unlikely to happen this century, same as your assertions regarding the 2A.
You must have missed where I said our kid’s kids. Possibly your kids are older, but I’m referring to the Millennials and their kid’s kids.

This is a gun thread, but I must say coming from a doctor, ”unsubstantiated”? Well, sorry, I must disagree. Certainly, you’ll give me a study of some people who have only eaten meat throughout the generations in a rural location in the world and they live until theyre 100, because of genetics and environment. But the rest of us, meat will increase your chances of disease.

And as Rick points out, they’re environmental issues to be considered as well.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry, your interpretation is that any law whatsoever is an infringement.
'Not necessarily so. Any law that doesn't infringe - I'm fine with. Right now I just can't bring to mind any gun law that doesn't. If you can quote me one that doesn't - I'd like to read it.


...That is an extreme interpretation (yeah, right) not shared by the executive, legislative or judicial branches of the government.
...for whom 'personal'/'professional' conflicts of interest/anti-gun agendas played no part at all in reaching those "interpretations".


Under your interpretation, felons, infants, and possibly even fetuses would be able to bear arms because they're all defined (or can be defined) as people.
'Ridiculous on the face of it (and you know it). Felons constitutionally lose there right to keep and bear arms via due process as a consequence of having been convicted of felonies. As to "infants"/"fetuses" being "able to bear arms"...if I have to explain the physical impossibilities and irrationality involved there...


...The question, which the constitution intentionally leaves somewhat vague, is what constitutes "infringement".
That's EASY to determine. Simply look up the definition of the words 'infringe'/'infringing'/'infringement' in the nearest LEGIT dictionary and apply their definitions to any current or proposed gun laws. If any part of same applies to the text of those gun laws - they're unconstitutional. Figuring that out is not anywhere near as complicated as the anti-gun crowd would like us all to believe.


...This has been a bit fluid but is unlikely to ever fly to the extreme of an amendment reversing 2A nor the free-for-all approach you favor.
...which is why the anti-gun crowd and its sympathizers in government will continue to chip away at the 2nd Amend by deeming gun laws that infringe to be constitutional thru INTERPRETATION until the 2nd Amend has been, for all intents and purposes, 'repealed' by the sheer number of those supposedly 'constitutional' laws.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Without wishing to sound stupid, how would congress go about changing the constitution? Or is that even possible?

It's not "stupid" to ask what you don't know.

Yes. If I recall my high school 'government' lessons correctly, it can be changed via a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
 

Steve

Supporter
Larry, for some reference, I am a gun owner and support gun owners retaining the right to own and retain ownership of their firearms. I do not support those who want to ban all guns, I think the ban on assault weapons is pointless (about 1% or less of all firearms related deaths are related to a so-called assault weapon) and the medias obsession with this issue has been highly biased. I think Australia's approach is both dangerous and laughable in the US (good luck implementing that) and the left's assault on gun ownership is motivated by insecure self-righteousness moral aggrandizing hiding pea-sized testicles. I have hunted a good part of my life, in the past been a member of the NRA, was/am an Eagle Scout where responsible gun ownership is emphasized.

With that as a backdrop, your assertion that you're not aware of a law that fits your criteria (and I'm not aware of a law that fits your criteria) is related to the fact that you consider any restriction is an infringement. The SCOTUS disagrees and has consistently with your interpretation. You want to interpret the amendment literally when it suits you and even insert inaccurate terminology (NO LAW INFRINGING, which is not a direct quote) but when the law is interpreted so literally to include an infant (yes, that's ridiculous but it is a literal interpretation) you dismiss it. It's not appropriate to play both sides. Oh and show me where the constitution bans a 10yo from gun ownership. I know plenty that are both more responsible than you with a gun and are better shots.

Your interpretation is an extreme one, as defined by the fact that fewer than 3% of the public are NRA members and not all NRA members support no gun laws whatsoever. There isn't really an interpretation more extreme

I do realize that the NRA's fear is the chip-away problem and, as a result, I understand their unwillingness to budge further than from where we are. As you may remember from prior posts, I have consistently pointed out that gun violence in the US is nowhere near as bad as it was in the 80's and 90's. There has been a steady decrease in gun violence for over 30 years (with a small but concerning recent uptick), gun violence is largely confined to concentrated areas (hence Jeff's unwillingness to board a flight to North Minneapolis where a white liberal lawyer will be shot just as fast as a white racist pig). As a result, I don't support any changes beyond closing up some loopholes and better enforcement of the laws currently on the books. Clearly, the trend for over 30 years has been positive. The media's emphasis on this issue of late has been primarily agenda-motivated.

John, an amendment usually starts as a proposal by 2/3 of the House and Senate (or a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of state legislatures which has never occurred). It then goes to the state legislatures. Once approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures, the amendment becomes part of the constitution.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry, for some reference, I am a gun owner and support gun owners retaining the right to own and retain ownership of their firearms. I do not support those who want to ban all guns, I think the ban on assault weapons is pointless (about 1% or less of all firearms related deaths are related to a so-called assault weapon) and the medias obsession with this issue has been highly biased. I think Australia's approach is both dangerous and laughable in the US (good luck implementing that) and the left's assault on gun ownership is motivated by insecure self-righteousness moral aggrandizing hiding pea-sized testicles. I have hunted a good part of my life, in the past been a member of the NRA, was/am an Eagle Scout where responsible gun ownership is emphasized.

With that as a backdrop, your assertion that you're not aware of a law that fits your criteria (and I'm not aware of a law that fits your criteria) is related to the fact that you consider any restriction is an infringement. The SCOTUS disagrees and has consistently with your interpretation. You want to interpret the amendment literally when it suits you and even insert inaccurate terminology (NO LAW INFRINGING, which is not a direct quote) but when the law is interpreted so literally to include an infant (yes, that's ridiculous but it is a literal interpretation) you dismiss it. It's not appropriate to play both sides. Oh and show me where the constitution bans a 10yo from gun ownership. I know plenty that are both more responsible than you with a gun and are better shots.

Your interpretation is an extreme one, as defined by the fact that fewer than 3% of the public are NRA members and not all NRA members support no gun laws whatsoever. There isn't really an interpretation more extreme

I do realize that the NRA's fear is the chip-away problem and, as a result, I understand their unwillingness to budge further than from where we are. As you may remember from prior posts, I have consistently pointed out that gun violence in the US is nowhere near as bad as it was in the 80's and 90's. There has been a steady decrease in gun violence for over 30 years (with a small but concerning recent uptick), gun violence is largely confined to concentrated areas (hence Jeff's unwillingness to board a flight to North Minneapolis where a white liberal lawyer will be shot just as fast as a white racist pig). As a result, I don't support any changes beyond closing up some loopholes and better enforcement of the laws currently on the books. Clearly, the trend for over 30 years has been positive. The media's emphasis on this issue of late has been primarily agenda-motivated.

John, an amendment usually starts as a proposal by 2/3 of the House and Senate (or a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of state legislatures which has never occurred). It then goes to the state legislatures. Once approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures, the amendment becomes part of the constitution.

"Oh and show me where the constitution bans a 10yo from gun ownership."

When have I ever said it DID?


"I know plenty (of 10-yr-olds) that are both more responsible than you with a gun and are better shots."

Oh, really now!

Uh...Just HOW would you know: #1) how responsible I am with firearms, and, #2), Do any of those 10-yr-old kids have a DD214 like mine that shows "Navy expert pistol/rifle shot" in box #24? (Of course they don't...I know that...they couldn't have. They're only 10-yrs-old. I was making a point.)


"...your assertion that you're not aware of a law that fits your criteria (and I'm not aware of a law that fits your criteria) is related to the fact that you consider any restriction is an infringement.

So does the dictionary. As I've pointed out previously...the words "limit" and "restrict" are two of the very words/synonyms dictionaries use to define "infringe". So, given that, just how is it that my "interpretation (is) an extreme one" when the dictionary definition of "infringe" backs my view??? Either the actual dictionary definition of "infringe" is valid, or the whole 2nd Amend is nothing more than so much ink on a piece of paper.


Oh, and FYI - I'm a gun owner, 'member of the NRA, and 'have certain other...uh...'credentials'(?) related to the topic that I'm not comfortable mentioning here.




'Time to 'bag' this for the night...
 

Steve

Supporter
And therein lies the problem with your assertions, Larry. They're based on a rigid and literal interpretation of the constitution using a dictionary. If the document was that rigid, it wouldn't have survived. It's "vagueness" is part of its strength and the reason it has not only survived but flourished. Madison was initially troubled by it, but subsequently viewed it as a strength.

My point in defining my gun status was to illustrate where I'm coming from and that I'm not some left-leaning wonk but a right-leaning gun owner.....and even I view your interpretation as waaaay off base.

The fact remains, your interpretation of the constitution is on an island with very few inhabitants. I get it that you like to pick a few words to justify it, but in the end it doesn't matter as no branch of govt has ever supported such an rigid interpretation. For that matter, I don't see any right leaning posters on here rushing to your definition.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
The fact remains, your interpretation of the constitution is on an island with very few inhabitants. I get it that you like to pick a few words to justify it, but in the end it doesn't matter as no branch of govt has ever supported such an rigid interpretation. For that matter, I don't see any right leaning posters on here rushing to your definition.
None of which makes my view wrong.

It all boils down to one thing: either the F.F.s intended that laws infringing on the right to keep and bear can be written/passed/signed into law or they intended that not be the case. Clearly the Founders intended the latter. Had they not, what would have been the POINT of them 'bestowing' the right to keep and bear worded in such a way as to render it useless/ineffectual/impotent from the get-go? 'May as well have saved the ink.

Incidentally, I find it humorous that, on the one hand, you object to me using the phrase "no law infringing" as opposed to using the lengthy phrasing "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...while on the other hand you insist the constitution was intentionally written so as to be "vague" in its meaning and open to "interpretations" - even those that run contrary to the actual meaning of key words the F.F.s used. Somehow that's just honky-dory 'far as you're concerned.

One last point regarding your "island" analogy. Keep in mind Las Vegas was once an island with only one lone inhabitant (metaphorically speaking...so you don't go off on a tangent there). His name was "Bugsy" Siegel. Look at it now. He was right. Everyone else was wrong. Undeniably so.

Anyway - you've made your argument(s). I've made mine. We're now into rehashing and nitpicking. 'Time to move on IMHO...so I'm going to do just that...
:chug:
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
here:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
 

Steve

Supporter
Larry, your whole argument is based on a completely false interpretation of what the FF intended. If you read historians (try Joseph Ellis or any other credible historian) you'll realize they did not even think about the individual ownership issue. They were solely concerned about the states ability to raise and arm militias. At the time, there was a strong fear of the potential coercive force of a federal army. The individual rights to gun ownership is a much later interpretation.

No nitpicking, your argument is solely based on your (and a very small minority of Americans) view of what you want 2A to mean, not what the FF intended, and not what 240 years of Executive, Judicial, and Legislative interpretation has been for 230 years. That's as close to false as it gets my friend.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry, your whole argument is based on a completely false interpretation of what the FF intended.

Really. The F.F.'s intent and meaning when they penned "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" seems pretty clear to ME. It matters NOT what historians (or anyone else) may SAY the F.F.s intended...or what the individual F.F.s may have 'tossed around' idea-wise before putting pen to paper. As is the case with all legal documents, WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DECIDED UPON AND WROTE INTO the constitution is all that matters...along with the definition of the words they used.

So; one last time here:

It all boils down to one thing: either the F.F.s intended that laws infringing on the right to keep and bear can be written/passed/signed into law or they intended that not be the case. Clearly the Founders intended the latter. Had they not, what would have been the POINT of them 'bestowing' the right to keep and bear worded in such a way as to render it useless/ineffectual/impotent from the get-go? 'May as well have saved the ink.
'No point in continuing to go 'round and 'round on this.

G'day, Sir.
 
I think Australia's approach is both dangerous and laughable in the US (good luck implementing that) and the left's assault on gun ownership is motivated by insecure self-righteousness moral aggrandizing hiding pea-sized testicles.
I've always thought gun ownership is classic over-compensation for small penis size and/or lack of maternal attachment or a sign of prior neglect and even abuse.
 

Steve

Supporter
Larry, what constitutes “infringe”? In your world, that’s any law at all. Again, the compiled the various writings of Madison and other FF don’t support your assertions. Read the federalist papers (written by Madison and Hamilton) and you’ll see.
 
Try saying that in a bar with a Marine. But make sure it’s on video:thumbsup:
First, I don't drink alcohol (or smoke), thus I wouldn't be in a bar. And alcohol is a processed food, so that's a diet no-no too.

Second, I compete and alcohol impedes performance. Empty calories.

Third, if a Marine can't handle the legit diagnosis/truth, then that's his or her problem.

Fourth, I doubt you would call other "liberal" men's testicles "pea-sized" in front of their faces. Just because some folks don't believe guns belong in a civilized society, doesn't mean you can call them names and insult them. I expected better of someone who's well-educated, a doctor, for heaven's sake, truly one of the elite in our society IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top