Things that made you frown today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

And I thought Back was the king of stupidity. Congratulations on stealing his crown.

---

It's a big enough crown for the two of them to share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

Yes I am fine with people owning those things assuming they can afford them. My argument is perfectly accurate and denotes a social reality with laws and the decay of society. If you are not committing harm on others then why should not not be able to own whatever you want? Why is it that wen a drunk hits someone, it's the drunk's fault, when a suicide bomber kills people, it's the bomber's fault, when a terrorist (or fucked up rich teen brat) drives into a crowd it's their fault but when someone shoots people (other than in Tennessee) it's the gun's fault?

---

So, you are fine with people owning nuclear weapons, as long as they can afford them?

I'm not blaming guns or anyone and I am a NRA supporter.. but you might be the only one I have ever had a conversation with that believes that people have the right to own a nuclear weapon.

I'm not sure where to go from here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necro

Because a gun multiplies the bodycount to an insane level, why is this so fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking hard for you to understand???

Make swords legal I don't care. Make wheelocks legal like in the founding father days, sure. But, a machine gun that can wipe out 50 people in a matter of seconds is just not cool.

---

Whaaaaaaaaaa, I am overly emotional that guns might kill people and I can't personally handle the responsibility of owning one and so obviously no one else should own them either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

Lots of legal scholars have argued both ways. Based on the English standards at the time it does not modify the primary sentence which includes ". . . shall not be infringed."

---

Okay, surely you can easily explain this then. The second part of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is not modified by the first half of the sentence. So, what did they put the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part there for? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...what? What is the purpose of mentioning well regulated militias if the second part of the sentence is not related to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenlaar

Okay, surely you can easily explain this then. The second part of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is not modified by the first half of the sentence. So, what did they put the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part there for? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...what? What is the purpose of mentioning well regulated militias if the second part of the sentence is not related to them?

---

Do you know what a militia is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

Do you know what a militia is?

---

Sure. It's something that was considered vital to the safety of the nation in a time when a massive standing national army not only didn't exist, but was seen as a danger in and of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenlaar

Sure. It's something that was considered vital to the safety of the nation in a time when a massive standing national army not only didn't exist, but was seen as a danger in and of itself.

---

That constitution thing is so outdated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necro

--From the Militia Act of 1792

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

NOT THIS...

https://media.giphy.com/media/Pn1232jBLN0TC/giphy.gif

---

You're not adjusting for inflation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenlaar

Sure. It's something that was considered vital to the safety of the nation in a time when a massive standing national army not only didn't exist, but was seen as a danger in and of itself.

---

So, you still didn't answer what a militia is. You obviously don't know what one is. When the constitution was written, discussing the militia, they were definitely referring to a force of citizens who were self supplied, including their own weapons. They are not professional, they don't get issued stuff. They have their own stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

So, you still didn't answer what a militia is. You obviously don't know what one is. When the constitution was written, discussing the militia, they were definitely referring to a force of citizens who were self supplied, including their own weapons. They are not professional, they don't get issued stuff. They have their own stuff.

---

And they were part of regulated and trained militia groups. And their purpose was specifically to be prepared to defend the US if needed because, again, we not only didn't have a massive standing national army, but having a massive standing national army was considered a danger in and of itself. Obviously that no longer applies, does it?