Would publishing the personal information...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...of those with CC permits make the permits themselves an oxymoron?

[Oneka]

1. Not really.

The holder of such a list still has to identify the person's on it, and then only has a 50/50 shot at knowing, whether that person is currently carrying. If any harm came to a carrier , as a result of this info
being published, then a lawsuit with a fat payday for Damages, is appropriate.

[bongbong]

2. Huh?

> If any harm came to a carrier , as a result of this info being published, then a lawsuit with a fat payday for Damages, is appropriate.

Nothing happened to O'Liely after he encouraged some repig to murder Dr. Tiller. Of course, since the rule in America is always IOKIYAR and ok for repigs to break laws, I suppose you might be right.

[Oneka]

6. "Nothing happened to O'Liely"

Civil action should be allowed to move forward in cases like this one.

[rl6214]

7. WTF?

could you translate that into some form of English please?

[Oneka]

8. If a news organization

Publishes my personal information, and I or my family are harmed as a result of that publication, I should be able to sue that organization for damages.

[bongbong]

9. WTF?

I will, after you translate "WTF?" into some form of English.

[rl6214]

25. Your turn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTF

WTF


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search








Look up WTF or whiskey tango foxtrot in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


WTF may refer to:








Contents
[hide] 1 Slang
2 Media and entertainment
3 Music
4 Organizations
5 Television
6 Other
7 See also



Slang
"what the fuck", (sometimes "whiskey tango foxtrot," initialism from the NATO phonetic alphabet, used as a euphemism)

[bongbong]

30. Thanks

Now I can say, "You don't understand my post? WTF!!!"



(hint: if you're having problems, try searching for "republicans cause murder of Dr. Tiller", or "O'Reilly caused murder of Dr. Tiller&quot

[rl6214]

55. You wanna talk about something O'Reilly said, why don't you say it instead of O'Liely

or what ever you put. It's like the others that write about "murikans" or "jeebus" or some of the other juvenile crap I see posted here.

[bongbong]

61. SORRY!

I thought O'Liely was a well-known nick for O'Reilly (the king of clowns).

Seriously, don't jump down my throat and insult me ("post that in English&quot if you have a specific objection to my (or anybody's) posts. Specific is the key word here. Your reply to me was very non-specific in its tone. And if you give me something like that to play with, I'll have lots of fun!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. I would suggest...

...as many others have, that the social benefit of concealed carry is not to the carrier but to everyone by virtue of the anonymity of those carrying.

In four states there is no possibility of a list of permit holders as no permit is required to carry concealed. The trust between the state and the holders of permits is the essence of what benefits everyone. It's not who is on the list that is a compromise of that trust but more who is not. Sure those with permits may be targeted by some criminals but I would suggested that their homes would be more of a target than they would be personally. A criminal would be more likely to find a handgun there. We don't need to give gun thieves any help.

The fourth amendment is still in place. Publishing private information is a violation. Period!

[Hoyt]

15. "Social benefit" my rear. More guns in public are a detriment to society.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. Get a grip.

No one mentioned "more" guns, only carry permit publication.

[rl6214]

26. so is more bloviateing on the internet yet here you are

[safeinOhio]

17. It would seem to me that issuing

any permit is a public action. Therefore, public information. Voter list and party are public. Drivers license information can be on file and public. Building permits.
Not that is a good or bad thing, it's just that it is an open option to get or not to get a CCW. I lean toward all public actions being open to the public.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. I lean toward all public actions being open to the public.

Is getting a SSN a public action?

[safeinOhio]

22. Sure, I would think so.

I see nothing wrong with public records of who has signed up for or collects SS. Amounts, or address is a different matter. But, who in on the rolls is not. Your employer gets access to your enrollment.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. we just don't agree there. n/t

[mvccd1000]

28. Agreed.

Getting a government permit is a public action. All public actions should be open to the public (transparent).

I'm glad to live in a state that does not require a permission slip from the government to put on a jacket when the evening cools off. I require no more government action to exercise the right to bear arms than I do to exercise my other protected rights. Therefore, there is no list upon which my name could appear.

[safeinOhio]

29. You don't vote?

[mvccd1000]

46. Sure.

Seems that the government has some compelling interest in making sure I only vote once per election, hence the list.

The government does not have a compelling interest in making sure I only have the right not to self-incriminate once, or can only speak freely one time, or can only own one gun or carry it one place. Therefore, there is no registration for those rights, and no list with my name to make sure I can practice them.

[safeinOhio]

115. In my state and most others, of course there is a list

if you can legally carry a concealed weapon. By the time a cop runs your license, he knows.

[mvccd1000]

124. And what good would you suggest that does?

The few police I know personally have told me that they approach every traffic stop as if the person is armed. Presuming that the officer was already going to approach you as if you were armed, how is anyone's safety improved by the officer knowing that you may or may not be carrying, but you are licensed to do so?

[safeinOhio]

125. That is not the point.

You didn't want to be on any list.

[mvccd1000]

127. Gotcha.

Sorry, my answers were not focused in that direction.

I don't so much mind lists, and as my first reply said, I agree that government interactions should be transparent. I don't think the ability to exercise constitutionally protected rights should necessarily be on a list, though. (Voting as on obvious exception, as you can only exercise that right once per election.)

I don't think any citizens should be on a list of who spoke on the corner about a certain political issue, or who protested another issue, or who exercised their right to be free from search and seizure, or even who exercised their second amendment rights.

In that vein, I can say I'm glad to live in a state that does not require my presence on such a list to exercise my rights.

[BiggJawn]

21. I'm not worried about burglars.

I'd be more worried about the anti-gun loonies standing in front of my house with bullhorns and signs.

We'd wind up being the same kind of target Dr. Tiller was.

[bongbong]

68. Really?

> We'd wind up being the same kind of target Dr. Tiller was.

Tell me how a gun could defend against a sneak-attack sniper-attack, which is what killed Tiller.

I'll wait. This promises to be an answer FILLED with magic!

[Clames]

126. Funny.

Only magic here is your dancing strawman.

[bongbong]

132. ROFL

> Only magic here is your dancing strawman.

Oh, so now you're calling the documented facts of what happened to Tiller a "strawman".

What a laugh!

[Clames]

140. No...

...just your usage of the event in attempting to make some hysterical point. Clutch those pearls a little tighter if you can.

[bongbong]

144. OK

Its seems you only have rhetorical flourishes to cover up your lack of response to my point. So, keep firing away. If you need more, look at the website "www.rhetorical_devices_to_use_when_losing_an_argument.com".

[Atypical Liberal]

4. That's a good point. If the public has a right to know who is carrying guns, why not carry openly?

That is a great point. If the idea behind publishing the names of CCW permit holders is that the public should know who is carrying firearms, then they should just go to open carry, that way everyone knows without having to consult a database first.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. If the public has a right to know who is carrying guns

That's the point, the "right to know who is carrying guns" is a myth. It's not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

No such right exists.

[bongbong]

10. 2nd Amendment

> It's not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Nor is the "right to any firearm".

The 2nd Amendment is about the Militia, not about lassez-faire gun ownership. The phrase "well-regulated" is discussed at length in Federalist Paper #29, and it means "trained like an army". I can't help it if crummy SCOTUS members in the past have mis-interpreted it, just like the current court is completely insane (at least 5 or the 9)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. an Individual is a Member of the Militia. In order to be well regulated the Individual must have a

gun.

... completely insane? Produce the psychiatric evaluations stating this, please.

[bongbong]

32. In order to be well regulated

> In order to be well regulated

They also need to be "trained like an army is", in the words of Federalist Paper #29. That doesn't happen, so my point stands.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

35. excuse me -- are you saying that I am not well trained?

How would you know who is and who is not well trained?

[bongbong]

39. Simple

> How would you know who is and who is not well trained?

That's simple - produce the certificate from the "trained like an army" Federal Agency where you got "well-regulated" (in the words of the Founding Fathers, as explained in Federalist Paper #29)

[gejohnston]

41. I got one of those

from both the Army and the Air Force.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. OK but, does this mean that one is not well regulated if one can not produce papers from a

Federal Agency?

Would ROTC be considered Federal?

[bongbong]

52. such simple questions.!

> Would ROTC be considered Federal?

Depends on how closely they hewed to the "well-regulated" condition of the 2nd Amendment, which, of course would have to be hammered out by the Legislature.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. then I am very well regulated.

thank you very much.

[bongbong]

69. Nope!

Seeing as how there are no laws on the books about what "well-regulated" means - which would of course have to pass "originalist" conservative muster & hew closely to Federalist Paper #29 to get thru the SCOTUS - your self-congratulation is EXTREMELY premature.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

75. trust me dude -

-I- am very Well Regulated.

You need to go take another bong hit.

[bongbong]

79. Really?

I'm glad you're in favor of self-judged standards. I'm a brain surgeon (as assessed by myself), and I hope I have a chance to fix your brain tumor.

You need to go take another hit of meth.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

93. in the immortal words of jpak...you are wrong. yup

[bongbong]

95. HA HA!

You are wrong, and you proved it by making endless assertions with no support. Plus you used the old standby of a personal insult.

Thus, you are wrong & I am right.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

97. I am a well regulated militia of One.

and NO. You are not invited to come inspect me or my castle.

[bongbong]

112. Yawn part 543,638

Your self-proclamations are worthless. If you really believe in them, are you ready for me to operate on your brain tumor? I am the GREATEST brain surgeon in history!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

117. night night

Mr. Yawn.

you are boring me.

You are conflating things about which you know nothing.

[bongbong]

119. Okey dokey

I like how you throw out those unproven assertions & unsupported accusations. Keep thinking you know more than me, I'm sure it makes you feel good about yourself.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. you are very condescending -

of course, you know that.

[GreenStormCloud]

122. Does my DD-214 count?

I spent a year in Vietnam. Does that count?

[bongbong]

130. What a laugh!

You think I write laws?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. that needs to be further discussed and refined, imo.... still, did you forget to produce your

psychiatric evaluations as proof for your slanderous accusations that members of the SC are insane . . .

I will wait.

[bongbong]

53. Wow!

> psychiatric evaluations as proof for your slanderous accusations that members of the SC are insane

Postings on anonymous chatboards are not considered slander, although most likely the repig-appointed insane nuts on the current SCOTUS would disagree, and upset precedents for the n-th time if they ruled on the matter.

Any other problems with what the Founding Fathers wrote?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. go do another bong hit, dude.

[bongbong]

80. Go do another hit of meth, dude.

[eqfan592]

90. Thanks for establishing how completely you missed the point.

[bongbong]

91. Thanks

Right back at you, ace. I see you missed the point!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

94. that is some stretch you have there

easy to see how I go from bongbong to the obvious bong hits analogy . . .

but, how you got from to Tuesday Afternoon to a meth reference . . .

I am beginning to understand how your reading comprhension skills (or lack thereof) work.

No wonder you have the Constitution and the Federalist Papers so conflated.

[bongbong]

96. Yawn-o

> asy to see how I go from bongbong to the obvious bong hits analogy

Oh, the word "bong" doesn't mean anything but "bong hits"? You should probably buy a dictionary.

> t, how you got from to Tuesday Afternoon to a meth reference

Just as easy as the spurious connection between "bongbong" and "bong hits". Meth is consumed by many people on Tuesday afternoon.

> I am beginning to understand how your reading comprhension skills (or lack thereof) work.

And I am seeing how gun-lovers usually end up with personal insults after their NRA Talking Points are debunked.

> No wonder you have the Constitution and the Federalist Papers so conflated.

More mind-reading. Show me a post of mine where I equate them, other than to say the Founding Fathers were involved with the writing of both.

Your score: Zero for 4.

Can you have the NRA send out better debaters?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

98. I bow to the MasterBater.

bravo.well done.

[bongbong]

102. Hmmm

"Masterbater"!

WOW THAT IS A SERIOUSLY FUNNY QUIP!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

106. !

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. That's too bad...

...for you that you don't like reality. Denial is always pleasant, though.

Have a nice day.

[Hoyt]

16. At least the other 4 members understand the phrase "well regulated militia."

It's always humorous to hear the pro-guns-in-every-corner-of-society-culture explain that pesky little phrase.

Maybe appointment of another objective justice will solve a lot of problems in this country.

[gejohnston]

18. there are no objective justices

to quote Norman Goldman: "judges are politicians in robes."

[bongbong]

33. None?

Not a binary function. Some are more objective than others. From the record of decisions handed down in the last 40 years, to be at least, say 30% objective, you have to be appointed by a Democratic president. The last time a vaguely objective judge was appointed by a repig was Souter in 1990. But since Eisenhower, only 3 repig-appointed justices WEREN'T ideological tools.

[gejohnston]

51. so they are objective if they agree

with what you want.
Sorry, the real world doesn't world does not work that way.

[bongbong]

54. Mind-reading

> o they are objective if they agree with what you want.

Your mind-reading attempts are wonderful! But I would ask for your money back from the school where you learned them, as your accuracy is running at 0%.

[gejohnston]

60. not mind reading

just reading between the lines.

[bongbong]

62. Yawn

> just reading between the lines.

Get a refund from the school where you went to "learn" that, too.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. bored yet?

take a nap

[gejohnston]

67. get a double refund where you learned

constitutional law and history.

[bongbong]

70. More fail!

> get a double refund where you learned constitutional law and history.

I never claimed to be an expert, or for that matter to have learned anything on the the subject. Just using common sense, reading the writings of the Founding Fathers, and staying away from dogma like the NRA-approved re-definition of the 2nd Amendment.

If you have a problem with what the Founding Fathers wrote, and prefer the NRA re-writing of history, just say so.

[rl6214]

27. "the pro-guns-in-every-corner-of-society-culture"

You wanna point everyone to where we can learn about that culture or is this just another of your made up societies you like to bloviate about on the internet?

Only ones I ever see say anything about guns in every corner of society are you anti-gun zealots

[bongbong]

31. I love it!

> you anti-gun zealots

Yeah, asking for non-insane gun control laws and limits on gun ownership is "anti-gun zealotry".

I still don't know why, using the NRA re-definition of the 2nd Amendment, I can't own flame-throwers, tanks, nukes, jet fighters, etc. When, oh when, will the NRA REALLY start sticking up for the 2nd Amendment? ( since you pro-gun zealots won't get it)

The NRA are a bunch of traitors to the 2nd Amendment!

[rrneck]

34. Are members of a militia "people"? nt

[bongbong]

37. Are

Are members of a militia "well-regulated"?

[rrneck]

43. There is no militia.

If there were, would they be people?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. As a well regulated Individaul, is it wrong to consider oneself a

a Militia of One?

How many does it take to form a Militia?

[rrneck]

49. Um, I would consider it

a group of like minded individuals with a common objective. It seems to me that the term describes a certain type of relationship rather than an individual point of view.

[rl6214]

57. Learn what "well-regulated" actually meant at that time then get back with it

[bongbong]

71. Std talkin point

> Learn what "well-regulated" actually meant at that time then get back with it

That Talking Point was demolished centuries ago when Federalist Paper #29 was published. Read it, and learn something other than NRA Talking Points.

[rl6214]

89. Wrong, guess again

Why don't you post what "well regulated" really means? Can't do it, can you.

[bongbong]

92. Nah Nah!

> Can't do it, can you?

Nah Nah, yes I can!

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

[rl6214]

105. Yeah, you've got a funny definition and I've got the correct one

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

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

[bongbong]

113. Yes

Yes, and Federalist Paper #29 specifies what "proper working order" means in reference to militias.

Thanks for agreeing with me, and understanding how the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership. You finally get it!

[bongbong]

56. You didn't answer my question

Why are the NRA such traitors to the 2nd Amendment, and only care about guns of certain calibers?

[rrneck]

73. You can run but you can't hide.

The NRA is a corporation that produces ideology for mass consumption. Your hyperbolic deflection should be embarrassing you by now.

Are the members of a militia people?

Can you deal with the issue outside of the ideology you plucked off the shelf like a bag of chips?

[bongbong]

81. ????

Your post makes no sense. It doesn't address any point I made, nor does it make anything other than assertions.

Maybe you can handle a sentence like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" better than a discussion on guns.

[rrneck]

84. Still running.

Everyone can read this sub thread.

Are the members of a militia people?

[bongbong]

99. Hmm....

I know you're going for some crazy GOTCHA! after this post, but I'll bite, if nothing else to see what the Talking Point de jour is.

Yes, members of militias are people.

Next question is mine to ask you, although I am interested in your GOTCHA! response, so go ahead and type it in.

[rrneck]

108. Nope, thats it.

Having chased you through a dozen posts to get you to admit the obvious, my point has long since been made.

[bongbong]

114. Yep

And my point has long been made too, that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.

In fact, my point was made many decades before I was born!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

116. Actually it's rather simple:

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

[bongbong]

120. Your point?

I'll stick with the Founding Fathers and their definitions for controversial phrases in the Constitution. After all, they wrote the Constitution. An excerpt from a speech by JFK is flowery phrases for a particular audience, and I'd have to see the whole thing to see what context it was in.

So .... what is your point?

[rrneck]

118. And what point was that?

Let me guess. Only militias should have access to firearms?

Did you know that I have already been wrong once and you missed it?

[bongbong]

121. Read, baby, read!

My point was explicitly pointed out in this very sub-thread (#114). I even used the phrase, "my point has ...".

[rrneck]

123. Oh, that.

That wasn't a point, it was hyperbole.

Actually, "shall not be infringed" is the very definition of "laissez faire gun ownership".

[bongbong]

131. Well....

> That wasn't a point, it was hyperbole.

OK, in that spirit of "discussion", all your posts are hyperbole and are worthless.

But continue to entertain me. Post more of your drivel.

[rrneck]

133. Awwww....

Can't stand getting busted.

[bongbong]

136. Yawn againT

That wasn't very entertaining. Don't you have a few dozen "BRAND NEW! GUARANTIED TO SHOOT DOWN THE OPPOSITION!" Talking Points from the NRA to parrot?

[rrneck]

161. I dunno

why don't you trot back to the Federalist papers and find something else to embarrass yourself with?

I don't mind fish in a barrel, just try not to make them catfish.

[rl6214]

58. Learn what bearing arms really means...

You can't bear a tank or jet fighter.

[bongbong]

65. Really?

> Learn what bearing arms really means

Oh, you mean like the under-10 pound Panzerfaust?

Why isn't the NRA DEMANDING our rights to own RPGs??? Even 70 year old RPG technology fits the NRA-approved version of the 2nd Amendment!

[rl6214]

88. typical BS from the anti-gun zealots

Did the minute men bear cannons during the revolutionary war? No, the bore muskets. Bearing a cannon would be the equvilent to bearing an rpg.

[bongbong]

101. OK

Oh, that's a good one. So that also means that only muskets can be sold these days.

Don't you hate it when you contradict yourself?

[rl6214]

107. No, it's commonly accepted that the foot soldier carries the modern weapon of THE FOOT SOLDIER

Don't YOU hate it when you look like a fool?

[X_Digger]

109. If he did, he wouldn't do it so much.

I have to conclude he likes it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. +1 n/t

[bongbong]

111. You're still losing

> No, it's commonly accepted that the foot soldier carries the modern weapon of THE FOOT SOLDIER

You mean like most of the German Army carried by hand after Jan 1945 - the Panzerfaust RPG?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. thank god for that "pesky little phrase"

[Atypical Liberal]

78. Even if the second amendment specifically said you had to be in a militia to keep and bear arms...

Even if the second amendment specifically said you had to be in a militia to keep and bear arms, the fact is, the militias of the founders' day no longer exist.

Does this mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms also ceased to exist?

In order to answer this question, we have to agree on what the purpose of the decentralized military system the militias made was to serve.

[rrneck]

23. Are members of the militia "people"? nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. *** and crickets ***

[rrneck]

42. Kinda nice to hear sometimes.

They remind me of home. Of course, so does all the stupid.

*sigh*

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

164. and a day later...

...you can still hear them...

I find it's quite restful. It's almost peaceful.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

165. love it, sitting on my porch, sipping on a mint julep and listening to:

[bongbong]

38. Are

Are members of a militia "well-regulated"?

[rrneck]

40. There is no militia.

Are they people?

I trust you have another question prepared.

[bongbong]

50. Try again

In the spirit of your answer, there is no people.

I trust you have another non-answer prepared, to go along with your nonsense "questions".

[rrneck]

74. At last count

there were over three hundred million people in the United States.


Are the members of a militia people?

[bongbong]

82. Still dodging

Your original answer was an unsupported assertion that "there are no militias". If you can prove that, then we can get into semantics.

[rrneck]

85. Fine.

Are the members of a militia people?

[Atypical Liberal]

87. There are no militias that serve the role that they did in the founders' day.

The militias in the founders' day were a decentralized, state-controlled military force, designed to eliminate the need for, or at least be able to counter, a federal standing army.

Those militias were usurped in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act. They became the National Guard, which is now a reserve and adjunct to the standing army, not a counter to it.

[bongbong]

103. That's not my problem

> he militias in the founders' day were a decentralized, state-controlled military force, designed to eliminate the need for, or at least be able to counter, a federal standing army.


That's not my problem, and it doesn't have anything to do with my points. If the USA has a giant, only VAGUELY Constitutional standing army, that problem should be fixed. The extreme distaste that many of the Founding Fathers had for standing armies is not questioned by any historian.

[Atypical Liberal]

129. It's a problem for anyone who wants to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

That's not my problem, and it doesn't have anything to do with my points.

I was addressing your statement, "Your original answer was an unsupported assertion that "there are no militias". If you can prove that, then we can get into semantics."

And that statement is incorrect. The militia system that existed during the founders' day was dismantled with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903. It was undertaken ostensibly because the state-run militias systems had run into disrepair. Militias were expensive to train and equip, and so some states did so better than others. Additionally, people had ceased to show up for regular militia drill and many had become little more than social gatherings rather than military training exercises.

Thus the United States could not undertake foreign expeditions efficiently (which was probably one of of the motivations of the founders. Imagine how many foreign entanglements we might have avoided through history if all the states had to equally agree on supporting them.)

The Dick Act dismantled the militia system and created the Organized Militia (the National Guard), and the Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia). Some states sill retain wording in their constitutions to provide for state militias, though I am unaware of any formal state-run militia training programs.

But the fact is that the militias as they existed in the founders' day - state-run military institutions designed to eliminate or counter federal military power - no longer exist.

If the USA has a giant, only VAGUELY Constitutional standing army, that problem should be fixed.

It should indeed. But until that time, the second amendment still reserves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

I am convinced this was intentional. The second amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It would have been trivial to say that the right of the state, or the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But the founders did not do that. They said the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No doubt this was because they envisioned the possibility of the institutions of government becoming corrupt, but saw the people as the ultimate repository of force to protect their freedom.

So your problem, and the problem for everyone who keeps and bears arms, is that even though the first clause of the second amendment no longer applies, it does not negate the second clause.

This is why the argument that people often float that citizens can only bear arms in relation to service in a militia is wrong. Even if it were the intent of the second amendment (which it isn't), it doesn't matter because the militias spoken about in the second amendment no longer exist.

Now, if you are going to say that because those militias no longer exist, the right to keep and bear arms also no longer exists, that is another subject to be defended.

[bongbong]

135. reply

Per your post, if the militia no longer exists, then the 2nd Amendment has NO meaning anymore. IOW, the 2nd Amendment can't be used as a defense for laissez-faire gun ownership.

Steven's minority decision in the infamous Heller case (radical activist conservative judges overturning precedent) pointed this out most succinctly.

Most of the gun-adorers in this thread have let my clearly- and repeatedly-posted point fly right over their heads in their rush to judgement: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.

There, I said it again, maybe for the 10th time. Hopefully some of you will read it this time.

If somebody can show me a post of mine that says that guns should be outlawed, feel free. You won't be able to find one, except in your fervid imaginations.

[gejohnston]

137. what precedent?

laissez-faire gun ownership? Given the number of state, local, and federal regulations, I would hardly call it laizzez-faire

[bongbong]

143. You call it potato

And the rest of the world calls it "laissez-faire gun ownership". The number, and strictness, of laws in any other country (except Somalia and a few other libertarian "paradises&quot dwarfs the laws we have here.

[gejohnston]

152. we have more laws

and some of our state laws are stricter than some of those countries.
Somalia has stricter laws than many US states. Not that it matters, because most people in Somalia can't afford a bag of rice let alone a gun.

Japan calls commercial whaling "research", so what?

[bongbong]

156. Hmm

> and some of our state laws are stricter than some of those countries.

Evidence for this claim, please. Remember that one set of state laws in the USA is not comparable to the laws in a whole country, so look for the "most stringent" laws in a state and then compare them to the "most stringent" laws in a province of another country.

You got a lotta work to do, and since you won't be able to prove it anyway, you might as well just acknowledge I'm right.

> Japan calls commercial whaling "research", so what?

Ohhhhh, a genuine Red Herring! I'm impressed!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

163. the rest of the world

More than half of all the results of a google search for this term point to DU. Try again.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

139. A simple question

What is it you want changed? Be specific, identify the problem and explain what laws should change.

Also, if you could define "laissez-faire gun ownership" this may also be helpful.

[bongbong]

142. asdf

Refer to my post #141.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

147. Okay

I'm not in a rush. Take your time.

[Atypical Liberal]

148. But there is no answer in post #141.

Perhaps you could direct us to another one of your posts that supposedly answers the question?

[bongbong]

154. asdf

Read the thread, and look for "bongbong"s posts.

[Atypical Liberal]

158. I did, and have not seen anything that looks like an answer.

If I missed it, I apologize. Perhaps you could direct us to an actual post number?

Thanks.

[bongbong]

159. asdf

Refer to post #141

[Atypical Liberal]

149. He refuses to answer that question.

I've asked him what he thinks the second amendment means, and he is unable to answer thus far except to say that he doesn't think it means what I've said it means.

And I also have asked him to define "laissez-faire gun ownership", without reply.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

155. I can wait.

Often those who don't like something base the dislike on an impression which has not much to do with logic or the big picture.

[Atypical Liberal]

145. "Per your post, if the militia no longer exists, then the 2nd Amendment has NO meaning anymore. "

Per your post, if the militia no longer exists, then the 2nd Amendment has NO meaning anymore. IOW, the 2nd Amendment can't be used as a defense for laissez-faire gun ownership.

I disagree vehemently. The militias, made up of the people, were to serve as a way to prevent forceful tyranny by the central federal government.

The militias have been usurped by that same central federal government. This does not invalidate the rest of the sentiment or rationale behind the second amendment.

It simply means there is no longer an organized mechanism (the militias) by which to enforce it. But the people still retain the military power to protect their interests.

This is exactly what the founders intended. There is a reason why every single iteration of the second amendment specifically enumerates firearm ownership as a right of the people, and not a right of the states or the militias or any other branch of government.

And in fact, a proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated in Congress. Which indicates that not only is this a right of the people, it is not restrained only for exercising as a collective!. It is an individual right.

Most of the gun-adorers in this thread have let my clearly- and repeatedly-posted point fly right over their heads in their rush to judgement: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.

There, I said it again, maybe for the 10th time. Hopefully some of you will read it this time.

That's because need to define what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".

Also it's because you have not stated what you think the second amendment is actually supposed to do.

If somebody can show me a post of mine that says that guns should be outlawed, feel free. You won't be able to find one, except in your fervid imaginations.

The problem is that we have heard these code words like "laissez-faire gun ownership" before. Which basically means "hands-off gun ownership". Usually this is code for "you can't have unregulated gun ownership", which, when pressed, usually means the speaker supports onerously-regulated gun ownership.

We don't have laissez-faire gun ownership in this country. There are a host of laws and regulations that govern firearm possession. If we had liassez-fair gun ownership I'd be able to buy them through the mail out of the Sears catalog like my father did, and I wouldn't have to get government permission before buying one.

So you'll have to provide some details as to what constitutes "laissez-faire gun ownership and how you would change it.

[X_Digger]

150. Don't expect a cogent response..

He's had his hat handed to him multiple times, to the same result.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4290943&mesg_id=4291998

[Atypical Liberal]

151. What a trainwreck of a trouncing.

I can't believe I'm having to have the same conversation. Well done.

[bongbong]

153. hmmm

> The problem is that we have heard these code words like "laissez-faire gun ownership" before. Which basically means "hands-off gun ownership". Usually this is code for "you can't have unregulated gun ownership", which, when pressed, usually means the speaker supports onerously-regulated gun ownership.

So your objections to my post boil down to, basically, what you imagined I meant. Fervid imaginations, hard at work!

> So you'll have to provide some details as to what constitutes "laissez-faire gun ownership and how you would change it.

Refer to my post #141.

[Atypical Liberal]

157. There are no answers in post #141.

So your objections to my post boil down to, basically, what you imagined I meant. Fervid imaginations, hard at work!

I don't have any objections yet, because you haven't explained what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".

And there are no answers in post #141.

[bongbong]

160. asdf

Try reading #141 a little slower.

[Atypical Liberal]

162. Try answering a little faster.

For someone who is supposedly busy you have plenty of time for typing "asdf" followed by meaningless reading suggestions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

169. "Communicating badly and acting smug when you're misunderstood is NOT CLEVERNESS."- XKCD

It's clear why expanded gun control has moved in the direction it has in recent years- just look at the level of advocacy it attracts...

[bongbong]

170. asdf

> It's clear why expanded gun control has moved in the direction it has in recent years- just look at the level of

If you show me where I advocated greater gun control, let me know. Just put the post number where I advocated for it.

Fervid imaginations running wild!

[friendly_iconoclast]

171. I wasn't aware you were advocating *anything*, (that 'communicating badly' thing)...

...save for the notion that "The NRA is wrong about the Second Amendment and I, bongbong, am right". You're hardly alone in your certitude- the Gungeon has
attracted many a never-published, never-admitted-to-the-bar self-proclaimed "Constitutional scholar"...

[bongbong]

172. Really?

> attracted many a never-published, never-admitted-to-the-bar self-proclaimed "Constitutional scholar".

Show me where I said I was never admitted to the bar, or where I proclaimed myself a "Constitutional scholar". I'll wait for your reply.

Secondly, if you want to find a list of people who think the NRA is wrong and are more or less expected to be "Constitutional scholars", you can start with Justice Steven's dissent to Heller. Then you can look up the thousands of articles written by law professors opposing NRA re-writes of the Constitution.

[friendly_iconoclast]

174. OK, then. Kindly point out for us what the NRA got wrong. Here's a link to their site:

http://www.nraila.org/second-amendment.aspx

I'm sure with your fine (and possibly admitted to the bar) legal mind, a thorough and incisive fisking should be easy peasy for you...

[bongbong]

176. No way!

The NRA would feel threatened, and send goons to "legally" murder me via SYG laws.

[friendly_iconoclast]

177. Well then, what you have asserted without evidence can be likewise dismissed without evidence.

I get the feeling you are either a somewhat incompetent attorney or a fair to middling AI.
If the latter, my compliments to your programmers...

[bongbong]

178. asdf

> I get the feeling you are either a somewhat incompetent attorney or a fair to middling AI.

And I get the feeling you're a guy posting things to DU under NRA orders, to try to move gun discussions right-ward. Have a nice (pay) day!

[rl6214]

59. You don't know what "well-regulated" at that time means

no matter how many times you repeat that question.

[bongbong]

72. FAIL!

Federalist Paper #29 was published centuries ago. Try to keep up with current events!

[Atypical Liberal]

77. All 9 judges agreed the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

All 9 justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization, such as the militia.

Even President Obama agrees with this position.

[bongbong]

83. And...

So you agree that laissez-faire gun ownership (of course only of NRA-approved types of arms) has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment?

[Atypical Liberal]

86. I dont' know what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership"

I don't know what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".

The second amendment is about enumerating the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms suitable for infantry use, to be used to kill people who threaten the security of free states, and, by extension, themselves.

The militias - a decentralized military force designed to counter that of the central federal government - no longer exist. No doubt this is why the founders enumerated it as a right of the people and not a right of the militias, nor the state.

The people still have the right to keep and bear military-grade small arms suitable for infantry use, for the same reasons as the founders intended.

[bongbong]

104. Interesting

> The second amendment is about enumerating the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms suitable for infantry use, to be used to kill people who threaten the security of free states, and, by extension, themselves.

Wow! Which Founding Father wrote that? I especially like the "military-grade" phrase. Sounds like the "Founding Father" Nathanial Robert Allen (NRA to his friends) wrote that one.

[Atypical Liberal]

128. You'll have to do the research yourself, I'm afraid.

> The second amendment is about enumerating the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms suitable for infantry use, to be used to kill people who threaten the security of free states, and, by extension, themselves.

Wow! Which Founding Father wrote that?

I've typed on this topic so many times I'm just not up for it this morning. There are lots of supporting period citations also.

I'll just leave it at this. Here is the text of the second amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Questions for you to consider:

Q: How do the militias function to be necessary to the security of a free state?
A: By using military force against those who threaten it.

Q: Who would be threatening that security?
A: Other people.

I especially like the "military-grade" phrase. Sounds like the "Founding Father" Nathanial Robert Allen (NRA to his friends) wrote that one.

It's really disappointing to read this sort of thing and realize that people have such a poor grasp of the US Constitution and the second amendment in particular.

The "arms" that are spoken of for the People to keep and bear is clearly related to use in a Militia, which were the military forces of the country of the day.

So the arms being spoken of most definitely were flintlock muskets, musketoons, pistols, and similar arms of the day - all state-of-the-art military-grade hardware suitable for use in the infantry militia.

[bongbong]

134. I've done the research

And my research, including detailed historical accounts of the period from Articles Of Confederation to the writing of the Constitution, and the political deals that were made, and the colonial mindset among the "common" people, and the many tax revolts of that time, and the anti- and pro-Federalism, and the various letters between the Founding Fathers ...., well, the subject list I've covered is quite extensive.

After reading literally dozens of books by noted and not-so-noted historians on the subject, my conclusions of what the Founding Fathers intended is diametrically opposite from the pseudo-history & lies the NRA pumps out. I've already demonstrated on this thread, and been the victim of, the fact that when people run out of NRA Talking Points they resort to personal insults.

My work here is done.

[Atypical Liberal]

138. OK, so based on your research...

OK, so based on your research, what was the purpose of the militias?

Why were militias seen as advantageous over a standing army?

Why were the militias state-controlled rather than a central militia controlled by the federal government?

Why are militias necessary to the security of free states?

What sort of arms were the people supposed to keep and bear?

[bongbong]

141. Thats four questions

And I've already answered so many!

After I ask a few, and get answers to them, I'll entertain answering your questions. Right now I'm a bit busy, and as I said, I've answered question after question & proven my point quite well.

[Atypical Liberal]

146. Feel free to ask away.

After I ask a few, and get answers to them, I'll entertain answering your questions. Right now I'm a bit busy, and as I said, I've answered question after question & proven my point quite well.

Feel free to ask away, I'll wait.

You've not provided any answers to what you feel the second amendment is intended to do, only to disagree with what you think it doesn't do.

Edit to add:

Nor have you defined what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".

I have gone all through this thread now looking and have not seen these answers you say you have provided. If I've missed them I apologize - perhaps you could direct me to a post number?

[friendly_iconoclast]

166. "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

Different axe, same grind...

[bongbong]

167. That's a good one

Here's another one:

"Millions of Americans Passionate Defenders Of What The NRA Imagines Constitution To Be"

[friendly_iconoclast]

168. And what do *you* believe "...The NRA Imagines Constitution To Be"?

Would that be as nebulous as your definition of "laissez-faire gun ownership"?

[Glassunion]

173. The NRA Imagines Constitution To Be

Any gun, anywhere, any time for everyone shall not be infringed... Cold dead hands, go Tebow and God Bless 'Merica...

[friendly_iconoclast]

175. Bwahaha!

[Callisto32]

13. Whoa, dude.....

my hands are HUGE........whoa.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Cool

but how is that relevant?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

100. huge hands, large arms

Big Guns