UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you voted for a president who wanted to ban an entire religion from the united states of america.
remind me what it says in that first amendment again, klantard.
MARCH FOR OUR LIVES
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
remind me what it says in that first amendment again, klantard.
zeddd
Well-Known Member
I’m a limey but was it this
“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitutionprevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, ” ?
“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitutionprevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, ” ?
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
Armalite sold the rights to the "Armalight rifle 15" to Colt.
There are over 10 guns with the ar designation "ar". The first ar rifles were .22 caliber survival rifles.
The others include bolt action rifles and a shotgun.
There are over 10 guns with the ar designation "ar". The first ar rifles were .22 caliber survival rifles.
The others include bolt action rifles and a shotgun.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I referenced Canadian gun control laws in an earlier post for a reason. I don't think banning the AR-15 is an adequate response to gun violence in the US. For example, hand guns are a much larger problem in terms of gun homicides and I think they should be more strictly regulated than rifles in the manner that Canada does.
I'll post a link again for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada
Canada's gun laws have been proven effective to greatly reduce gun violence and yet anybody who has a legitimate reason to own a gun may do so, it is comprehensive and well thought out. You can misattribute what I'm saying all you like and I'll just come back with the Canadian model for a rational system of gun control laws. I'd very much like to see the US enact something similar, paid for by taxes on gun purchases and licensing fees.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Yeah, we’re talking about the Second Amendment.
greg nr
Well-Known Member
Yes, because you assholes tried to take our guns, too. Which is why we threw your tea into the harbor and stole the land you colonized after waging a primarily insurgent/asymmetrical war against your country at the peak of its empire, spanning from East to West.
Say what now? A bit of revisionist history there. Here is the REAL reason we tossed their tea and raped their woman (and if you need to ask where this came from, you need to repeat grade school)....
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
Here is the ar1.
Here is the ar 7.
Here is the ar17 shotgun.
Here is the ar30 bolt action.
Here is the ar50 bolt action.
There were other models that never went into production and out of all of them only two people call "assault" weapons. The ar10 and the ar15.
Ar stands for armalite rifle.
Here is the ar 7.
Here is the ar17 shotgun.
Here is the ar30 bolt action.
Here is the ar50 bolt action.
There were other models that never went into production and out of all of them only two people call "assault" weapons. The ar10 and the ar15.
Ar stands for armalite rifle.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The second amendment was written when these guns like these were in use:
Just saying, if you want to talk about limiting guns sold and owned in the US to these types, I'm completely willing to talk about maintaining the status quo concerning gun sales and ownership.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
No need. The framers of the constitution made it amendable. I suppose you'd still have chattel slavery too.
greg nr
Well-Known Member
Well, the second amendment was passed to appease pro-slavery states. It really had nothing to do with gun rights or national defense. So if slavery is gone, shouldn't the second amendment be also?
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
This statement is irrelevant. The forefathers knew there would be advancement in firearms, and the premise of the amendment is to sustain liberty and defend one’s personal property. The advancement of firearms is irrelevant in regards to the amendment.
That’s like saying if the military had M16s and other “advanced weapons” and were run by a corrupt government (bear with me a moment), our forefathers expected us to oppose tyranny with nothing but a Pennsylvania Long Rifle.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I think you have your facts wrong here. The second was written to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias. It was a concession to anti-federalists, not a concession to slave holders. For one thing, Virginia already gained it's concessions in the constitution to protect rights to own slaves. The constitution with it's concessions to slaveholders was ratified well before the second was even written.
In any case, I'm not arguing against civilian rights to own guns, I'm just arguing for putting the "well regulated" part of the second into play.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'm just offering an olive branch. And being absurd, I admit. No red blooded gun owner wants to go back to flintlocks when much better toys can be had today.
How many more unnecessary dead are you willing to tolerate? 100,000? 500,000? Unlimited? Are you satisfied with the status quo?
What do you propose to bring gun homicides in the US down to that of other developed nations?
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Hey, man, olive branch accepted. I’m not trying to debate or say anyone else’s perspective is wrong. I was just saying.
I truly wish we didn’t need firearms. But I believe there’s no closing Pandora’s Box. If you ban certain firearms or overrestrict firearms in this country, that innocent people will be put at a significant disadvantage, trying to defend against a violent criminal who doesn’t follow the rules. You can argue training is needed, and I will agree with you, but putting it in perspective, whether I was trained or not, if I am faced with an armed assailant, I’d rather at least level the playing field, personally.
Again, not opposing, just offering.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Regarding lowering the homicide rate, it might help if we start by taking the drug market away from cartels and legalize weed. And ridding ourselves of a tyrannical, oppressive government. I think the overregulation and manipulation of revenue by lobbyists has caused an urgent need for catharsis in our society. We’re the most incarcerated country in the world, for instance. If people felt free, I think the pressure might lessen, and people might chill out, particularly, if they could smoke a fat one without having to worry about a ‘roided out “peace” officer kicking in their doors.
greg nr
Well-Known Member
Not so Fast there bucko.
The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery
Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that ... and we all should be too.
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”
It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
More in link.....
https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/thom-hartmann-second-amendment-was-ratified-preserve-slaveryIn the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”
It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
More in link.....
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
That seems pretty far-fetched. Pretty sure even our Founding Fathers knew that slavery would eventually be abolished.