What they meant...

Duck and cover
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:37 pm

...by "militia", "well-regulated", etc. This bill, from 1836, speaks of the militia system and how important it was to the US.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=732
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: What they meant...

Post by Phoenix76 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:48 am

Yes GS, and that is your problem. Your constitution, and the relevant amendments, were formulated almost 200 years ago. This particular amendment is now so out of date in respect to modern America, it's not funny.

It seems that you have this group of rednecks that cling to a history of 200 years ago that has no relevance today. I haven't read your link, but I can accept that 200 years ago, you needed to be able to defend yourself against outlaws and red indians (no offence intended). But this is 2017,and whilst firearms for recreational purposes sounds very acceptable, I cannot see the need for automatic or military class weapons. I mean, geez, if I dropped a rabbit with an AK47, there would be nothing left to eat.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:50 am

Phoenix76 wrote:Yes GS, and that is your problem. Your constitution, and the relevant amendments, were formulated almost 200 years ago. This particular amendment is now so out of date in respect to modern America, it's not funny.

It seems that you have this group of rednecks that cling to a history of 200 years ago that has no relevance today. I haven't read your link, but I can accept that 200 years ago, you needed to be able to defend yourself against outlaws and red indians (no offence intended). But this is 2017,and whilst firearms for recreational purposes sounds very acceptable, I cannot see the need for automatic or military class weapons. I mean, geez, if I dropped a rabbit with an AK47, there would be nothing left to eat.
We know all that.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: What they meant...

Post by Phoenix76 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:55 am

Sorry GS, I probably misread the intentions of your post.

But if you say that "We know all that", then what are you doing about it? From the other side of the world, we continue to here about these massacres, and we continue to hear about the likes of the NRA. BUT YOU DON'T Do ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Sorry for the emphasis GS, but that is how the rest of the world interprets you responses.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:29 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:Sorry GS, I probably misread the intentions of your post.

But if you say that "We know all that", then what are you doing about it? From the other side of the world, we continue to here about these massacres, and we continue to hear about the likes of the NRA. BUT YOU DON'T Do ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Sorry for the emphasis GS, but that is how the rest of the world interprets you responses.
It's really simple, money. The gun manufacturers have created a subculture that believes the government is out to take their guns. There are ~256 million guns in the US. 3% of the population own half of that number. There is a constant FUD* campaign to keep them worried. They fund politicians' campaigns and the politicians guarantee that there won't be any meaningful laws passed to control the spread of the gun mania.


*Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9746
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: What they meant...

Post by Poodle » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:23 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:... you needed to be able to defend yourself against outlaws and red indians ...
...and the Redcoats may be back at any time. We've simply been patiently waiting.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What they meant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:33 pm

:lol:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: What they meant...

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:34 pm

Poodle wrote:...and the Redcoats may be back at any time. We've simply been patiently waiting.
The Americans annexed Hawaii even though Hawaii was an independent monarchy that wanted to join the British Empire and even took the Union Jack into its current state flag. I say we send our Redcoats to take back Hawaii first, to honour Captain Cook.

After that, we take back California on behalf of our Spanish allies! Louisiana for our French comrades. Moscow has already had a trial run at a "Trump" in Alaska, when Russia installed Sarah Palin.

Her Majesty will rule those traitorous gun loving Yankees yet again! She'll ban guns. (None of this namby-pamby "constitutional right" whining. She can behead Trump in public, at Madison Square Garden and get those Yankees back on track. )
:D

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:44 pm

The Japanese and Germans were also interested in liberating Hawaii from the Americans. At one point British, American, German and Japanese warships were anchored within shouting distance of each other off Honolulu. The Assist. Secretary of Navy was ready to order the USN to repel "foreign" attempts to take over the islands. Sadly, for him, the crisis died down. He did use this incident to order that plans be made to "deal with" Japan in the future. These plans became "War Plan Orange." The Assist. Secretary of the Navy would have pressed the matter if not for the intervention of the Spanish-American War and his chance to led cavalry units in Cuba.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: What they meant...

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:01 am

I bought a couple of books on the history of Hawaii back with me. It does have a rather complicated history.

My first big "I'm an idiot" moment was when I realised Captain Cook's Sandwich Islands and Hawaii were the same islands. :D

The other thing was that the 13 States of the USA had no easy way of getting to Hawaii until the war against Spain. The west coast of North America was still Spanish. I'm starting to realise The Pacific wasn't a thing for the USA until they annexed the Spanish west coast colonies, like California and so on.

The earliest drawings of Hawaii are actually Russian, which is even more confusing. (It was an open port for any nation to gather food and water)
Russian in Hawaii.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: What they meant...

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:20 am

Its amusing to recognize that if "first explorers" were all given their druthers now............the whole world would be........

...............................

.............................................................

.......................................................................................................... Chinese.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: What they meant...

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:23 am

Its amusing to recognize that if "first explorers" were all given their druthers now............the whole world would be........

..............................homo sapien. (We left Africa about 100,000 years ago.)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: What they meant...

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:24 am

We are all homo sapien.

"What you talkin' 'bout Willis?"
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32181
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gord » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:55 am

Oh. This is where I meant to post that video I posted in the other thread.

It's 6 in the morning, I've been up all night. Fixing it is too hard, so I'll just post it here too and let, I dunno, Hitler take the blame. I hate that guy.

[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb2KUnWNCLs[/bbvideo]
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:18 pm

Fixed the video, now to get you fixed.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: What they meant...

Post by xouper » Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:58 pm

From the Supreme Court case DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER :
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html wrote:. . . the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
It does not mean "restricted by statute".

Another discussion:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm wrote:The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter.

It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.

Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
A common mistake many people make today is to confuse the colonial term "well-regulated" to mean the same thing as the word "regulation" in today's laws. They are not the same thing.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: What they meant...

Post by xouper » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:23 pm

Gord wrote:Oh. This is where I meant to post that video I posted in the other thread.

It's 6 in the morning, I've been up all night. Fixing it is too hard, so I'll just post it here too and let, I dunno, Hitler take the blame. I hate that guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb2KUnWNCLs
I posted my reply to that video in that other thread before I saw it here.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 88#p607888

Should I re-post my reply here as well, or is that one place sufficient?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4354
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: What they meant...

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:27 pm

So how do gun buyers prove they are disciplined and their minds are working correctly?
Some kind of background check, perhaps?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What they meant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:25 pm

And doing the required miles with a licensed driver and tha tests for yer license... oh, wait. That's the other weapon...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:18 am

ElectricMonk wrote:So how do gun buyers prove they are disciplined and their minds are working correctly?
Some kind of background check, perhaps?
We need a national register. And the gun nuts will go nuts-er at that idea.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What they meant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:26 am

And insurance, they have to have some kind of coverage to be able to keep their licenses valid.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What they meant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:28 am

Would be great if From was around and posting at the moment. He's the kind of gun owner/enthusiast I wish all of them would be.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: What they meant...

Post by xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:37 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:We need a national register.
That's a very bad idea.

In any case, according to the Supreme Court, those who own guns illegally are exempt from any law that requires them to register their illegal guns.

See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: What they meant...

Post by xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:46 am

ElectricMonk wrote:So how do gun buyers prove they are disciplined and their minds are working correctly?
Why do they need to prove that?

The Second Amendment does not require anyone to be "well regulated".

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4354
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: What they meant...

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:50 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:So how do gun buyers prove they are disciplined and their minds are working correctly?
Why do they need to prove that?

The Second Amendment does not require anyone to be "well regulated".
it does, literally so, and that has been the law of the land for most of US history.
It requires a lot of special reasoning why the most modern interpretation of the constitution is also the most faithful.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: What they meant...

Post by xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:03 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:So how do gun buyers prove they are disciplined and their minds are working correctly?
Why do they need to prove that?

The Second Amendment does not require anyone to be "well regulated".
it does, literally so,
That is factually incorrect.

ElectricMonk wrote:It requires a lot of special reasoning why the most modern interpretation of the constitution is also the most faithful.
Not so.

The Supreme Court explains very clearly the legal and historical justifications for its interpretation of the Second Amendment, and there is nothing "special" or out of the ordinary about their reasoning.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:27 am

The King's Regulations were the rules the Royal Army and Royal Navy operated under. They regulated the operation of both branches. This is not an "interpretation", it's literally the language they used. Well-regulated troops were those who followed the regulations. The Americans were familiar with the usage and used it to mean what they wanted the 2A to say.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: What they meant...

Post by xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:01 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:The King's Regulations were the rules the Royal Army and Royal Navy operated under. They regulated the operation of both branches. This is not an "interpretation", it's literally the language they used. Well-regulated troops were those who followed the regulations. The Americans were familiar with the usage and used it to mean what they wanted the 2A to say.
The historical evidence does not agree with your interpretation of "well-regulated" as it was meant in the Second Amendment.

The US Supreme Court is very clear on that point.

Also, the state militias at the time did not have any "regulations" to follow. The militia was literally every able bodied male who could help defend the state. Those state militias were not part of the Royal Army or Royal Navy and were not under the authority or regulations of the King.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1187
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: What they meant...

Post by Cadmusteeth » Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:33 pm

So where does it say that?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:48 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:So where does it say that?
It's in the "well, we rewrote because it didn't say what we wanted it to say" version.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: What they meant...

Post by xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:36 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:So where does it say that?
In [i]District of Columbia v. Heller[/i], the Supreme Court wrote:Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1187
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: What they meant...

Post by Cadmusteeth » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:01 pm

Isn't that what we're not getting enough of? Not enough people being trained and monitored?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: What they meant...

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:16 am

Actually, my reading of wiki and a few other sites all saying the same thing about "well regulated militia" has changed my mind a bit on the "original intent" of the 2A. Years ago, I thought nearly the same thing as I do now when reading this parallel construction: "In order to protect the State from uncontrolled Fires, the right of the people to keep and bear ladders, shall not be infringed."

..................seems to me there is a disconnect with the argument that "no one discusses the first words of the 2A about a well regulated militia........." Seems to me, reading those words in expressly only makes the gun nuts case stronger.

Makes my own follow up argument weaker as well. I do not think ANY RATIONAL PERSON would support the free access to guns AS we have now. Gun tech has changed. It doesn't even matter "if" the Founding Fathers would not have written the 2A if they had known about modern fire arms. What the Founding Fathers DID RECOGNIZE is that the Constitution and BoR would need to be changed and updated over time. What the Founding Fathers did NOT recognize is how fractious and risky any subsequent constitutional convention would be..............and "perhaps" they made the bar to changing the Constitution just a bit too high?...........and I say perhaps because they did spend the time to write the Const and BoR that they wanted. Its not unreasonable that the bar be set high.

Pros and Cons to all we do........... and don't do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:56 am

Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: What they meant...

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:06 am

An interesting read. A bit misleading here and there as in "the militia system of the United States" more accurately should be "the militia system of the various states ..."

I don't see any relevance of the document to this discussion.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:20 am

No, you wouldn't.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What they meant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:31 am

xouper wrote:...
In any case, according to the Supreme Court, those who own guns illegally are exempt from any law that requires them to register their illegal guns...
That leaves the nutters who walk bullets into schools and churches and even play target practice with people enjoying an open-air concert with their legally owned weaponry.
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: What they meant...

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:32 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:No, you wouldn't.
Prove me wrong..................name and connect the dots. All the document does is make mention of the militia. It doesn't "do" anything.......it is only a request........that I assume was NOT acted on.

How does/should this inform our discussion of the 2A?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: What they meant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:33 am

If someone else asks I'll explain.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: What they meant...

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:34 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
xouper wrote:...
In any case, according to the Supreme Court, those who own guns illegally are exempt from any law that requires them to register their illegal guns...
That leaves the nutters who walk bullets into schools and churches and even play target practice with people enjoying an open-air concert with their legally owned weaponry.
Yes............and I assume even a "well regulated mental health service" would not catch our Vegas Shooter. As noted..... he's RICH.

RICH = a special and exalted form of CRAZY.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?