Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Anti-aircraft guns are not "riffles". They look like this:

and they can shoot down airplanes. The calliber is typically somewhere around 100 mm. ie the bullet are two or three inches wide.

While it is true that these sorts of guns are not available to just anyone in America, the government does allow some civilians to privately own them.

The process for acquiring a gun like this in America is probably not much different from the process for acquiring a shotgun in the UK.

Olivier5 wrote:

The amendment says nothing about personnel self-defense against criminals. Therefore it is not being applied as written.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms explicitly includes guns for protection from criminals.

Also, since the right to keep and bear arms was always about handheld infantry weapons, a hardline approach might demand the same weapons carried by modern footsoldiers, but larger weapons were never covered by this right.

1 Reply

Quote:

Louisiana State House Defends Gun Rights

Quote:

You know what is a human right, the right to self-defense. The vast majority of those who own so-called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines are law abiding. There is no reason to ban their property.

Guns are going nowhere soon, let's try the solving the real problems.
http://thehayride.com/2018/04/louisiana-state-house-defends-gun-rights/

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

There's no 'rule' that mass shootings happen only in school. The only discernable pattern is that they're all carried out with guns.

Nice try. The "rule" in this case is a pattern of where these events more often than not take place, this can't be denied and it shows by the now different track you are going to prove what is obvious, a majority of people who perpetrate mass shootings do so in places where the likely hood of someone else having a gun is zero.

Quote:

Quote:
there are no guns allowed to be carried by military or civilian personal on a military base, except by Military Police.

Interesting. Why do you think this rule is in force?

I don't know why this rule is in force, when I was in the military no one saw it fit to tell me why. If I had to guess, it has to do with weapons accountability and storage.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

In all actuality, civilians are allowed to carry on Military Bases, those being civilian and federal law enforcement officers. I would also note that on many military bases, the military only has the rights of a property owner and the state sworn law enforcement officers have primary law enforcement authority on those bases. I know this is complex for some of you, but having lived that life as a federal LEO, that is just the way it is. Look up different jurisdiction types, proprietary, concurrent and exclusive. If the US Government has exclusive jurisdiction, then they are the ruling law enforcement, if concurrent, then the military and the state/local law enforcement have equal jurisdiction. If the military has proprietary jurisdiction, then the state/local law enforcement has primary jurisdiction. So, a civilian person on a proprietary location would be charged into local courts for a criminal violation, a civilian person on an exclusive jurisdiction would be charged into a federal court. To further muddy the water, some military bases have different jurisdictions in different parts of the base, depends on how the property was acquired. Many military bases are leases, hence the proprietary jurisdiction.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

[I-slam a bed of roses prior to crusades.....]

Muhammad's resume is that of a warlord or bandit chieftain. The religion was deliberately cobbled together as a system for controlling increasingly large confederations of bandit tribes; it glorifies the kinds of **** that bandits do. The main problem with it is that the bandit tribe model of society was bypassed by events several centuries ago.

Winston Churchill (River War, First Edition):

Quote:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

0 Replies

You see this question occasionally on facebook or forums like this one, if you had a revolver and one cartridge and a time machine and were told you could go back in time to pick anyone of the worst villains in human history to shoot through the head on the day he was born so as to do the most good for mankind and our world, who would it be.

The first two candidates for that are obvious i.e. Muhammad and Chuck Darwin, the authors of the two really gigantically evil and dangerous false religions. Other candidates would include Mao Tse-Tung, Rachel Carson, and An Lushan. Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin wouldn't even make that list.

0 Replies

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/42/b9/1e/42b91e3e8b9690e67488ca7f1047355e.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vq5XKZZQDY

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

Good video. All those battles were Islam seeking out and celebrating new ways of thinking. Shocked

Ask Farmerman if you don't believe me.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Dont deny the raids and battles. BUT recall , the Byzantines were kinda worn out from raiding and beating up their own kind. Muslim raiders were often used as mercenaries by Christian factions.
The point was, in comparison (IMHO) Islam was more a religion and lifestyle that embraced and sought out learning and art and culture than was Christianity of the 700-1250 period .
Much of abstract math , physics and medicine were established or developed within specific caliphates. (admittedly a bit of the learning had originally been Greek, of which , the muslim groups were not stubborn to adopt)

Islam, its main problem was, as far as they were quite ahead of Europe till about 1300, they just sorta stayed in pre reconquista days. Several ages of "Enlightenment" in Europe gave the Christian states and Northern "barbarians" time to catch up---they got massively sick, , adopted many secular views of science and med (and hygiene) and much of that (including art), was of Islamic origin.

You just have a great knot up yer ass about celebrating your role as "Gunga, the anti-science guy"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

and much of that (including art), was of Islamic origin.

Show us some Islamic art. Should I wait?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

OHH lets start with the large collection of Midieval and more modern Islamic art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. It contains lots of objective work that will probably surprise those of you Rush Limbaugh types who can only repeat one line about Islam. In te years post mohammed and post Muhammed Ali , there was a great spurt of objective and abstract art produced by Muslim artists. The belief that they could NOT depict plein aire or objective subjects has grown from a few severe sects to mainstream Islam only in the last 500 years.
Ill give you some more museums in which you can tour and marvel at .
TRAVEL is deadly to bigotry--(I paraphrase mr whats is face , you know, with the hair and the cigar)

1 Reply

Somebody who could have shot Muhammad (MHBH) through the head on the day he was born would have been saving somewhere between a half billion and a billion human lives.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

Do you often fantasize about putting bullets thru a newborns's head? I hope you still see your therapist.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

who can only repeat one line about Islam

That way you only have to deny the truth each time you discuss Islam, which you do. The most important thing to know about Islam is that it is not designed for co-existence. The fact should override any fantasies you have. The religion/ideology and actions by some Muslims tell you very plainly what they doing is an obligation to see that Islam dominates the world. And a dangerous amount of Muslims are going to see it is done unless they are stopped.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Somebody who could have shot Muhammad (MHBH) through the head on the day he was born would have been saving somewhere between a half billion and a billion human lives.

Imagine a world without Islam, peace could be achieved.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

Do you often fantasize about putting bullets thru a newborns's head? I hope you still see your therapist.

Blatham wishes people dead regularly, make him an appointment.

0 Replies

https://lislampourlesnuls.blogspot.com/2017/09/islam-1400-ans-de-pillage-de-massacre.html?spref=fb

0 Replies

@oralloy,

None of your interpretations are written in the constitution itself. They are your subjective interpretations, no more no less.

I agree that some interpretation is needed, since the 2nd amendment is unapplicable as written.

The important point, though, is that when YOU interpreted subjectively the US constitution in your above posts, you mentioned three key considerations for such (necessary, though subjective) interpretation:

- There are limits currently placed on the right to keep and bear arms. eg the people is not allowed to keep atomic weapons or anti-aircraft guns.
- These limits have to see with the lethality of different weapons, the dangerosity for the public, and with whether or not they make for good SELF-defense tools (while the amendment stresses the defense of a free state, not individual self defense).
- Some amount of technological progress occured since the 18th century; the founders could not possibly bear in mind weapons of mass destruction and anti-aircraft guns, as those were unthinkable back then.

So you made some progress. Good. You see? You're not so stupid after all.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

None of your interpretations are written in the constitution itself. They are your subjective interpretations, no more no less.

Wrong. Those are the interpretations of the courts that originally applied the right to keep and bear arms.

The interpretations are not written into the Constitution, true. All the Constitution does is protect a preexisting right that was already understood.

Olivier5 wrote:

I agree that some interpretation is needed, since the 2nd amendment is unapplicable as written.

The Second Amendment is entirely applicable exactly as it is written.

Olivier5 wrote:

The important point, though, is that when YOU interpreted subjectively the US constitution in your above posts,

No. When the courts that originally applied the right to keep and bear arms interpreted the right to keep and bear arms.

Olivier5 wrote:

you mentioned three key considerations for such (necessary, though subjective) interpretation:
- There are limits currently placed on the right to keep and bear arms. eg the people is not allowed to keep atomic weapons or anti-aircraft guns.

The right never applied to anything more powerful than what an ordinary infantry footsoldier would carry.

Since these are not weapons that an ordinary infantry footsoldier would carry, limits on these weapons do not really constrain the Second Amendment.

Olivier5 wrote:

- These limits have to see with the lethality of different weapons, the dangerosity for the public, and with whether or not they make for good SELF-defense tools

In a sense, yes.

Olivier5 wrote:

(while the amendment stresses the defense of a free state, not individual self defense).

That is a different part of the Second Amendment. The part that deals with the right to keep and bear arms does not stress anything at all, other than that the right shall not be infringed.

Olivier5 wrote:

- Some amount of technological progress occured since the 18th century; the founders could not possibly bear in mind weapons of mass destruction and anti-aircraft guns, as those were unthinkable back then.

That is hardly relevant.

Olivier5 wrote:

So you made some progress. Good. You see?

No. I've already achieved perfection. My only role here is to correct your untrue statements.

Olivier5 wrote:

You're not so stupid after all.

I'm the smartest person that you will ever talk to.

0 Replies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMY2YV9WucY&t=17s

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know