Something you won't find in your mainstream media

[DmonSlyr]

It is in essence precisely the military definition of an assault rifle. Further, sub-calibre is a munition whose diameter is less that the bore such as is the case with a saboted round. I think you mean intermediate cartridge. But as I said, it's irrelevant how you categarize the weapon.


What about: certain guns amplify the casualties in such 'postal events'? Surely even the most ardent firearms-admirer would concede this point in order to reserve any pretence of reason.


Well when you (not you in particular or personally FPS) find the needless death of innocents more disgusting and those irriplaceable lives more precious than your irrationally-worshipped weapons which go far beyond hunting or leisure or even (stretching it:) self-defence needs, then perhaps you would - paradoxically - demonstrate you are mature enough to have so many of them floating around.


You cannot stop that. In fact presently you are unable to minimise its growth. Your culture celebrates force and idolises power as the go-to-solution for all problems. You have a uniquely selectively competitive society, set against inequality of opportunity and without what is considered in the rest of the developed world basic rights. Your groups are clustered by faction & not community. You are essentially locked into a civil cold war with little discord or communication just occassional shouting at each other. The forthcoming generation is unable to set a reasonable career course or an optimistic future because large conglomerates run amok with less regulation than royal houses of long-ago. Into this mix you throw FPS for 18-25-year olds, endless Hollywood fantasy movies, inadequate mental health care and the availability of actual weopons only dreamed about in the Great War: 400 rounds easily carried about your person limited only by your finger getting tired and you guys are perplexed why this keeps happening.

All of this intellegent writing and yet you still cannot understand that CARS are more dangerous than any gun on the planet and they are being used for attacks.

Again, you will never stop mental health issues or people taking advantage of mental health people, as per my last post, which is why we as citizens deserve the right to defend ourselves. You see, if your country gets invaded or taken over by a corrupt government with mental illness to take your rights. There will be absolutely nothing you can do.

[Arlo]

The national guard IS composed mostly of common everyday citizens... hence the term militia
 

You could say the active duty military is composed of same. But once enlisted (or commissioned), trained and organized they are properly regulated. Billy Jim Joe Bob buying cammies and an AR-15, lots of ammo and beer then going out in the woods to 'shoot thangs' isn't.

[TheBug]

You cannot stop that. In fact presently you are unable to minimise its growth. Your culture celebrates force and idolises power as the go-to-solution for all problems. You have a uniquely selectively competitive society, set against inequality of opportunity and without what is considered in the rest of the developed world basic rights. Your groups are clustered by faction & not community. You are essentially locked into a civil cold war with little discord or communication just occassional shouting at each other. The forthcoming generation is unable to set a reasonable career course or an optimistic future because large conglomerates run amok with less regulation than royal houses of long-ago. Into this mix you throw FPS for 18-25-year olds, endless Hollywood fantasy movies, inadequate mental health care and the availability of actual weopons only dreamed about in the Great War: 400 rounds easily carried about your person limited only by your finger getting tired and you guys are perplexed why this keeps happening.

I had no desire to touch this thread with even a 10' virtual pole but I do have to say that's a pretty good take on where we're at as a country from someone that doesn't even live here.  Contrary to what that wingnut thinks.

[Arlo]

Arlo, I'm going to respectfully disagree.  The Supreme Court is, the final say on whether a law is constitutional or not.  That is their purpose.  They did not change the 2ndA.  What the SCOTUS did was rule that Washington D.C.'s law was unconstitutional, and in doing so, ruled that the right to keep and bear arms does, in fact, descend to the individual citizen and not just to State National Guards or the U.S. Army Reserve.

What I said is that they can't amend. Of course they rule on constitutionality. Congress can amend. That's why it's not actually 'end of story.' Nor should it be.

[Arlo]

All of this intellegent writing and yet you still cannot understand that CARS are more dangerous than any gun on the planet and they are being used for attacks.

All those mass car collision attacks on schools must stop.

[Busher]

All those mass car collision attacks on schools must stop.

Arlo, I am diverging somewhat but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the right to own a gun is entrenched in the Bill of Rights but the right to vote is not.

[decoy]

All those mass car collision attacks on schools must stop.

More Americans die in MVAs every year than died in the Vietnam War.  Consider that.  38,000+ in 2020.

[Arlo]

Arlo, I am diverging somewhat but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the right to own a gun is entrenched in the Bill of Rights but the right to vote is not.

Well, that's an interesting thought. I'd like to think the latter is more important. Historically speaking, gun ownership was impossible for a slave. But then, so was voting. Voting was also prohibited from non-land owners and women. Supposedly, you would think the NRA would love gun sales to include poor urban black people, vagrants, high schoolers, devout Muslims and hippies but, somehow, I suspect they've run the numbers and realize how unlikely that is (the cost of an AR-15 is rather prohibitive for those either living paycheck to paycheck or with the need to prioritize more important necessities). I kinda think there's a political viewpoint that would prefer voting to be just as unlikely for non-WASPs.

If owning an AR-15 was indeed an unalienable right for all citizens then there'd be as much a reason to issue vouchers for that item as well as an annual allotment for ammo as there would be for any form of welfare or Medicare. But, somehow, I suspect the anti-socialists would bear arms over such.

Voting? Well let's just say it's supposed to be easier for some than others ... according to some. In the original days of the founding fathers, it was.

Of course, this is merely a wandering thought on this. Thanks for inviting me to deeply step in that. 

[Eagler]

45 is a clear and present danger to the USoA. Jan 6 is a clear indication of such.

Bs

More silencing the opposite with the hope that it scares some into voting for more left bs in nov

They are putting on prime time tv tonight...grab your blankey and try not to let it scare you too much lol

If 2000mules is half true, it isn't over

Eagler

[Arlo]

More Americans die in MVAs every year than died in the Vietnam War.  Consider that.  38,000+ in 2020.

Hence there should be no regulation nor safety standards adhered to? Imagine that.

[DmonSlyr]

Arlo, I am diverging somewhat but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the right to own a gun is entrenched in the Bill of Rights but the right to vote is not.

That is why the founders explicitly put the second Amendment in the constitution. If crazy lunatics, especially those who gain power, can have access to arms, than so should the people of that country to protect themselves from those crazy lunatics. That's the whole point.

Now, voting has always been debated. I dont actually believe the founders wanted every single person to vote. The reason for that is because of the responsibility behind voting. If people who didn't own land, or people who didn't comprehend how the government worked ie, lack of education given that time, or people who didn't work or create labor ect, wouldn't be able to vote in the best interest of the society. There was also slavery at the time that the south would not give up, therefore, the founders couldn't really put the right to vote in the constitution, though I think deep down they realized that a dependent poor society would encourage more government control as we are seeing now, and that is what they were afraid of.

[Oldman731]

Arlo, I am diverging somewhat but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the right to own a gun is entrenched in the Bill of Rights but the right to vote is not.

The right to vote was left up to the states; see Article I Section 2, and Article 2 Section I.  The Civil War changed that; see 14th Amendment, Section 2 and 15th Amendment Section 1.  Women, of course, didn't get the right until the 19th Amendment in the 20th Century, and children didn't get the right until 1971 and the 26th Amendment.

Given that chronology, there appears to be a fairly convincing argument that guns were valued more than popular voting.

- oldman

[Busher]

Well, that's an interesting thought. I'd like to think the latter is more important. Historically speaking, gun ownership was impossible for a slave. But then, so was voting. Voting was also prohibited from non-land owners and women. Supposedly, you would think the NRA would love gun sales to include poor urban black people, vagrants, high schoolers, devout Muslims and hippies but, somehow, I suspect they've run the numbers and realize how unlikely that is (the cost of an AR-15 is rather prohibitive for those either living paycheck to paycheck or with the need to prioritize more important necessities). I kinda think there's a political viewpoint that would prefer voting to be just as unlikely for non-WASPs.

If owning an AR-15 was indeed an unalienable right for all citizens then there'd be as much a reason to issue vouchers for that item as well as an annual allotment for ammo as there would be for any form of welfare or Medicare. But, somehow, I suspect the anti-socialists would bear arms over such.

Voting? Well let's just say it's supposed to be easier for some than others ... according to some. In the original days of the founding fathers, it was.

Of course, this is merely a wandering thought on this. Thanks for inviting me to deeply step in that. 

Sorry Violator but I was talking to Arlo.

Arlo, with your comments and observations in mind, it leads me to question the so called infallibility of the founding fathers. I personally wonder if any had the insight to predict what a divide the 2nd Amendment would create.
But more importantly, the lack of a right to vote suggests their goal was to create a Republic for the "Haves".

[DmonSlyr]

Sorry Violator but I was talking to Arlo.

Arlo, with your comments and observations in mind, it leads me to question the so called infallibility of the founding fathers. I personally wonder if any had the insight to predict what a divide the 2nd Amendment would create.
But more importantly, the lack of a right to vote suggests their goal was to create a Republic for the "Haves".

Well, it seems you are missing the understanding. You didn't imply that you were only talking to Arlo. There is PM for that.

[Arlo]

Well, it seems you are missing the understanding. You didn't imply that you were only talking to Arlo. There is PM for that.

Though he did address me, specifically, this is indeed a public thread for public discussion no matter who decides they must first get their two cents in. However, I believe Busher understood me just fine.