On Mass Pike today and saw a huge anti assault weapon sign

[Pete G]

Oh yeah, question was intended to be rhetorical. I didn't realize the thread had like 3 more full pages of insanity at the time I posted. Oops, read, then post. I fail.

 

[mikem317]

They also include "kids" that are as old as 26 years old. Plus, some of those metrics include actual American servicemen and women that are KIA in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So those numbers are totally disconnected from any semblance of reality.

 

[cekim]

Doubt any numbers on that sign are accurate. However, if you look at the FBI crime stats for murder and non-negligent manslaughter and multiply that total number by .0025, you will have the number of people intentionally killed with "assault weapons". This doesn't include police shoots deemed good shoots that shouldn't have been.

0.25% is the number of "violent crimes" committed with salty weapons. That would likely drastically overstate the number of murders period and even more so the number of children.

 

[mikem317]

...As long as im not violating anyone elses rights what does it matter what i purchase and for what reason?

When we became a "democracy" and ceased being a "republic". Historians sort of differ on when that happened, but it did happen. Rights are now subject to majority rule, unfortunately.

People think they can control others, via government, by getting 50% + 1 vote and that somehow legitimizes their actions.

 

[cekim]

They also include "kids" that are as old as 26 years old. Plus, some of those metrics include actual American servicemen and women that are KIA in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So those numbers are totally disconnected from any semblance of reality.

Yes, this was a big part of the fraud of the AMA's previous claim and no doubt current and future claim's by the medical establishment of justification for their intrusion in patient's lives over gun ownership.

Which is why I contend that it is a measure of incompetence of the medical professional to push this nonsense on their patients. An even cursory investigation into this "science" shows it to be invalid.

- - - Updated - - -

When we became a "democracy" and ceased being a "republic". Historians sort of differ on when that happened, but it did happen. Rights are now subject to majority rule, unfortunately.

People think they can control others, via government, by getting 50% + 1 vote and that somehow legitimizes their actions.

Point of clarification, infringements of rights are subject to majority/mob rule.

 

[NickW85]

I wonder how many kids were killed by legal gun owners that were not in self defense. Also what to they consider a kid? under 18,19,21? Also how many of those deaths were with assault weapons, chances are most of those deaths are from handguns.

Edit: Found those facts reading on.

0.25% are deaths from salty weapons
26 year olds have been counted. (Good to know I am still a kid)

 

[bch1988]

Saw this sign on the way to work today.

I hate this state.

 

[Ben Diss]

... I feel like baseing it off of letters sent back and forth between only a few of the indivduals is giving them undue importance ...

... do you take into accout the emails of the legislator after a law has been pased to figure out what they 'really' ment? ...

How can someone be so completely unfamiliar with the facts on which their argument is based?

The Federalist Papers were not private letters sent between two individuals. They were a series of articles published in support of the passage of the Constitution. Of the 85 articles, only #84 addressed the rights of the people proposed in the Bill of Rights. The other articles supported the powers granted to the government in the Constitution.

 

[OfficerObie59]

If it was ment as many suggest (to counter a tyranical gov) I would expect some of the smartest men in the world to actauly WRITE that instead of what they did choose as the final text.

I'd say the part about "being necessary to the security of a free state" just about covers it.

Any question the 2nd Amendment was not an individual right was debunked for me when I read Leonard Levy's take on the issue in his book "Orgins oof the Bill of Rights". It's clear by his reading he has quite the disdain for modern militias and and the Second Amendment, but comes to the irrufutable conclusion that it is indeed a right for individuals, not just those acting within the bounds of a militia.

EDT: Better yet, read it for yourself. I'm asserting this copy, less than 10% of the orginal copywritten work and for non-profit educational use, is provided for under fair use. Go to "view" and rotate it 90 degress clockwise to read. Bear in mind it was also written before Heller and McDonald.

http://www.pdfhost.net/index.php?Action=DownloadFile&id=637fbfe2e01eedcccad34e282f9b4d6f

 

[vipprimo]

but when kids do get hurt accidentally it's usually because they find a gun and play with it not knowing how it works. Like they say, it's better to gunproof the kid than to kidproof the gun.

Can you please teach the world this!

I hate to use the reference, but in Walking Dead when Carl comes back and says he killed two walkers and she said she didn't want him doing that. The example set here is that he's going to grow in a world of guns whether you want him to or not. I don't know about anyone else, but I want my kid to look up and say daddy taught me everything I needed to know than for them so say I learned it through trial and error because he said I wasn't ready and I disagreed.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

OK, I have had a busy weekend, and I missed all the outings.

I'm absolutely pro gun person,

but just for my curriosity, why would you need an assault rifle ?

Because I do, and it is NOYFB.

 

[spcantwell]

ok, time to up date...
I completly understand what many of you are claiming. The FACT is still that THE 2ND DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHO NEEDS DEFENDED AGAINST.

It DOES on the otherhand refer to needing well trained (in military level equipment) individuals who can serve in a milita if needed.

As many of you typed, a milita was CALLED UP. called up by whom exactly if not some level of goverment?

The second amendment was signed in 1791... we declared independance when exactly? so in other words we had already succeeded.

As far as the Fed papers go, sorry... I was refering to the fact that they generaly where writen as LETTERS to the editor of many papers (at the time known as essays) where published in in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet which where ownd and published by people known personaly to the 3 writers. I didnt think that I would need to spell that out exactly.

Remember, I am SUPPORTING the right to bare arms, especially military grade weapons. I just get tired of the claims that the main reason for doing so it to overthrow the goverment. That makes all 2nd amendment supports sound like crack pots who are hideing in bunkers with there tin foil hats to keep the 'govmt' from stealing there thoughts..... Silly me for trying to help people look LESS like what anti's normaly think of.... you obviously are helping SOOO much to change that view....

just keep an eye out for those invisable black helicopters and every single goverment worker who is tracking you....

 

[cekim]

ok, time to up date...
I completly understand what many of you are claiming. The FACT is still that THE 2ND DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHO NEEDS DEFENDED AGAINST.

I think they assumed that was obvious - again see "overthrowing own government immediately prior."

It DOES on the otherhand refer to needing well trained (in military level equipment) individuals who can serve in a milita if needed.

It also offers no, zero, zip, zilch, nada qualification for the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Only that it "shall not be infringed." Not while in militia service, not a train, not on a boat, not on a goat...

The second amendment was signed in 1791... we declared independance when exactly? so in other words we had already succeeded.

Yes, they succeeded at seceding... Many thought the DoI and Constitution were sufficient, but it was quickly realized that 200+ years hence there would be pedantic arguments about the meaning of "is." So, they set about creating the Bill of Rights, which took a while.

The time it took is not a reflection on the fundamental set of beliefs driving that process.

 

[spcantwell]

I think they assumed that was obvious - again see "overthrowing own government immediately prior."

so 20 years is 'immediately prior'? Again the whole point of that section is that they no longer viewed them as 'there own goverment'. You still didnt answer the question, who 'called up' the milita? Was there any local goverment involved? Or are you claiming that the milita just spontaniously aappeared on the battlefeild?

It also offers no, zero, zip, zilch, nada qualification for the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Only that it "shall not be infringed." Not while in militia service, not a train, not on a boat, not on a goat...

Never said it did, so why are you bringing it up? Arnt you claiming that everyone is always in 'milita service' at all times? So what differnce does that make?

Yes, they succeeded at seceding... Many thought the DoI and Constitution were sufficient, but it was quickly realized that 200+ years hence there would be pedantic arguments about the meaning of "is." So, they set about creating the Bill of Rights, which took a while.

The time it took is not a reflection on the fundamental set of beliefs driving that process.

again, none of that has anything to do with people running around saying that the 2nd amendment is all about overthrowing our goverment and how badly that kind of statement makes all supporters of the 2nd look.

 

[Ben Diss]

... As far as the Fed papers go, sorry... I was refering to the fact that they generaly where writen as LETTERS to the editor of many papers (at the time known as essays) where published in in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet which where ownd and published by people known personaly to the 3 writers. I didnt think that I would need to spell that out exactly. ...

You're saying that the Federalist Papers should not be considered when seeking to establish the intent of the Bill or Rights. Is that right? You're saying this because they were essentially letters to the editor of newspapers. Correct?

Are you aware that they were written by some of the authors of the Constitution?

 

[Garys]

xactly.

Remember, I am SUPPORTING the right to bare arms, especially military grade weapons. I just get tired of the claims that the main reason for doing so it to overthrow the goverment. That makes all 2nd amendment supports sound like crack pots who are hideing in bunkers with there tin foil hats to keep the 'govmt' from stealing there thoughts..... Silly me for trying to help people look LESS like what anti's normaly think of.... you obviously are helping SOOO much to change that ..

It is not to overthrow the government. It is to keep individuals from using the cloak of the government to suppress individual rights.

As to the letters to the editors thing. You realize that that was how public discourse was often conducted during those times, right? That printing was incredibly expensive, letters had to be written by hand, and sending letters to a group of individuals would be expensive and slow. Letters to the editor were the Internet forums of the day.

 

[spcantwell]

You're saying that the Federalist Papers should not be considered when seeking to establish the intent of the Bill or Rights. Is that right? You're saying this because they were essentially letters to the editor of newspapers. Correct?

Are you aware that they were written by some of the authors of the Constitution?

I am saying that what 3 people wrote to newspapers are not the final word in what the 1st congess of 25+68 people ratified.

 

[spcantwell]

It is not to overthrow the government. It is to keep individuals from using the cloak of the government to suppress individual rights.

As to the letters to the editors thing. You realize that that was how public discourse was often conducted during those times, right? That printing was incredibly expensive, letters had to be written by hand, and sending letters to a group of individuals would be expensive and slow. Letters to the editor were the Internet forums of the day.

Really? And here I thought that the first congress actauly meet in person and had people writing out the mins or something... I didnt relise that the bill of rights was writen by the 1790's version of telecommuting and that it was all done by reading what people wrote in newspapers...

This is right up there with the Warren adds talking about this judge or that judge being pro this or anti that... The problem is that it shouldnt matter what the judges personal views are on something. It comes down to what THE LAW SAYS. Same as it doesnt matter what Madisons personal views where, it only matters what the finaly document that was signed into law SAYS. If you guys want to agree with warrens views of how judges and laws SHOULD work you go right ahead... Me, I will stick with what the laws actualy say...

 

[ryan81986]

I love when they change that sign. You know why? Because it means that Rosenthal just spent a shit ton of money, and has nothing to show for it.

He has nothing to show for it because 3/4 of the people that pass that sign don't even know what it said. So it does absolutely nothing for his cause. Go on douchebag, keep putting up billboards that no one is reading, or even understands.

 

[cekim]

so 20 years is 'immediately prior'?

So, the Revolution ended in 1771? Awesome. Guess I had that wrong. Yes, in the context of horse based national travel and the difficulty of getting the former colonies to agree on such foundational issues as the BoR, it was indeed "immediately prior."

Again the whole point of that section is that they no longer viewed them as 'there own goverment'.

Again, this argument makes no sense since the "shot heard around the world" was in direct response to the order to confiscate arms, BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. You are saying they designed a system that would require the government to call up militia to fight the government. Really?

You still didnt answer the question, who 'called up' the milita? Was there any local goverment involved? Or are you claiming that the milita just spontaniously aappeared on the battlefeild?

You seem to be having trouble with the idea that 2A was intended to broadly protect your right of self defense which includes not only against crime, but against attacks to your nation,community, etc... including from your own government. See above, your logic just doesn't stand up to what happened.

The answer to "who calls up a militia" is it can be anything from the state to the community as it was when the revolution started.

Are you trying to tell me that a faction of the British government ordered the Bedford, Lexington and Concord militias to form up and fire on other British soldiers?

again, none of that has anything to do with people running around saying that the 2nd amendment is all about overthrowing our goverment and how badly that kind of statement makes all supporters of the 2nd look.

If you have trouble with this concept or think it "makes us look bad" than you haven't learned the lesson of the American revolution and are doomed to repeat it.

Recall that these are people saying "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The objective of 2A was to broadly limit the power of government to infringe on the right of self defense from all threats, foreign, political, criminal etc... The whole intention was to put government on notice that government serves the people and to keep revolutions at the ballot box rather than the ammo box.

There is no shame or extremism is stating this simple fact of the Revolution. It was a "revolutionary" concept on which this nation was founded and the only way that we can remain free in the long run is to remember this lesson and remind others of it.

Your theory of what happened just doesn't make any sense. See above, it would require the British government to have called up militia against itself.

 

[Boghog1]

Really? And here I thought that the first congress actauly meet in person and had people writing out the mins or something... I didnt relise that the bill of rights was writen by the 1790's version of telecommuting and that it was all done by reading what people wrote in newspapers...

This is right up there with the Warren adds talking about this judge or that judge being pro this or anti that... The problem is that it shouldnt matter what the judges personal views are on something. It comes down to what THE LAW SAYS. Same as it doesnt matter what Madisons personal views where, it only matters what the finaly document that was signed into law SAYS. If you guys want to agree with warrens views of how judges and laws SHOULD work you go right ahead... Me, I will stick with what the laws actualy say...

It says shall not be infringed WGAF why it was written then if it is only what was written says

 

[ntomsw]

End the madness

 

[cekim]

End the madness

Tautology is a form of madness: "The government calls up the militia to fight the government."

Makes sense to me, what could go wrong?

 

[ntomsw]

Tautology is a form of madness: "The government calls up the militia to fight the government."

Makes sense to me, what could go wrong?

Oh boy.

 

[Coyote33]

... I am SUPPORTING the right to bare arms, especially military grade weapons. I just get tired of the claims that the main reason for doing so it to overthrow the goverment. ...

KEEP and bare arms. You forgot the keep part of it. It is not really for "overthrowing" the government, but to make sure tyrants do not take it over. "The government" is the people. If the wrong ones start taking over, they are removed, by force if need be. No?

OK, an edit:
After your post which I quoted here, and my reply to it, Cekim made one heck of a post. I second what he said. I also seek out anyone to help clarify for me if I was off in what I said. One can always stand to learn new things here. Thank you, all.

 

[Garys]

Really? And here I thought that the first congress actauly meet in person and had people writing out the mins or something... I didnt relise that the bill of rights was writen by the 1790's version of telecommuting and that it was all done by reading what people wrote in newspapers...

I've come to realize that my time would be better spent debating my daughter's cat.

Yeah folks, this has become a cat thread.

 

[spcantwell]

So, the Revolution ended in 1771? Awesome. Guess I had that wrong. Yes, in the context of horse based national travel and the difficulty of getting the former colonies to agree on such foundational issues as the BoR, it was indeed "immediately prior.".

ok, you want exact numbers? April 19, 1775 (for lex and con and open armed conflict) though you could make a case for it starting December 16, 1773 or even March 5, 1770. With the BOR signed in December 15, 1791. Remember we are talking about the start, not the end. After all you can make a case for it not ending until after 1812 war... so lets say, 16 years not 20... still not that fast.

Again, this argument makes no sense since the "shot heard around the world" was in direct response to the order to confiscate arms, BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. You are saying they designed a system that would require the government to call up militia to fight the government. Really?

You seem to be having trouble with the idea that 2A was intended to broadly protect your right of self defense which includes not only against crime, but against attacks to your nation,community, etc... including from your own government. See above, your logic just doesn't stand up to what happened..

Again, NO. They no longer reconised the people ordering the confiscation as there goverment. You also seem to think that the founding fathers where trying to encurage anyone that had any issue with them to immediately start an armed insurection... your logic just doesn't stand up to... well... reality

The answer to "who calls up a militia" is it can be anything from the state to the community as it was when the revolution started.

so the state (it would have only been a colony at the time or the Province of Massachusetts Bay) and the community are not part of any goverment? Or are you one of those people who thinks that every single portion of the goverment from town counsler to president of the US (or royal in this case) in all in perfect lockstep?

Are you trying to tell me that a faction of the British government ordered the Bedford, Lexington and Concord militias to form up and fire on other British soldiers?.

Nope, I am saying the the local goverments chose to fight against someone who they no longer saw as being a vaild goverment over them. Any way you look at it, the Milita was called up by a part of the goverment. So there purpose was not to fight there own goverment, only (what they viewd at least as) someone else goverments forces.

If you have trouble with this concept or think it "makes us look bad" than you haven't learned the lesson of the American revolution and are doomed to repeat it.

Recall that these are people saying "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".

And you havnt learned how to play with others. Being a 'crazy, govmnt hateing, gun toteing, etc...' who runs arround telling everyone that they want a machine gun so they can shoot up the evil govmnt troops when ever you dont feel like paying taxes anymore... just makes the people who dont know anything about guns think that we are all like that. Which makes them want to ban all guns, THANKS TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

The objective of 2A was to broadly limit the power of government to infringe on the right of self defense from all threats, foreign, political, criminal etc... The whole intention was to put government on notice that government serves the people and to keep revolutions at the ballot box rather than the ammo box.

There is no shame or extremism is stating this simple fact of the Revolution. It was a "revolutionary" concept on which this nation was founded and the only way that we can remain free in the long run is to remember this lesson and remind others of it.

Your theory of what happened just doesn't make any sense. See above, it would require the British government to have called up militia against itself.

again, its nothing about what I think happened. It is only what was ACTAUALY WRITEN. Unlike you I havent let my own personal views affect how I read the 2nd

 

[cekim]

And you havnt learned how to play with others. Being a 'crazy, govmnt hateing, gun toteing, etc...' who runs arround telling everyone that they want a machine gun so they can shoot up the evil govmnt troops when ever you dont feel like paying taxes anymore... just makes the people who dont know anything about guns think that we are all like that. Which makes them want to ban all guns, THANKS TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

What the hell are you talking about? I pay my taxes, I engage with people and government to change things for the better. I am not out there calling go-time, I am in the state-house trying to get our laws changed. I am working with people to help get good people on the ballot.

You just can't handle the unpleasant reality of history and so you need to get angry at me?

 

[cekim]

I've come to realize that my time would be better spent debating my daughter's cat.

Yeah folks, this has become a cat thread.

Yes it has, I should stop feeding the troll and will...

 

[Ben Diss]

I am saying that what 3 people wrote to newspapers are not the final word in what the 1st congess of 25+68 people ratified.

I see your point and I think I understand how you've come to your conclusion. Have you found anything else that shows the intent of the Continental Congress?

Do you think that the Constitution should be read as the founders intended, or do you think it should be interpreted with consideration given to modern innovations and revised to meet contemporary times?