long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !

[Farmer]

Why do you want to shut down others right of free speech?  If discussing these things upsets you, then stop looking at the thread.

You constantly tell foreigners not to talk about US politics.

[pegelli]

Now, let's compare mass shootings per gun in Europe and here! I am sure that per gunita™ number would make Pieter's head totally explode 

So you are saying that if there are more guns around that it is OK to kill more people. You might be right, I think the US is the living proof of that. 
q.e.d

[pegelli]

This thread is going to put Trump II to shame in the stupidity contest.

+1, everybody we don't agree with is stupid, pretty positive outlook in life I'd say 

[Chairman Bill]

I prefer the interpretations of our Founders of the Constitution over yours regarding the right to bear arms.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

See the rest:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

Nothing there contradicts my comment. A standing army was seen as a threat to the nation and to the rights of individual states. The 2nd Amendment was argued about by southern states who feared interference by an over-arching union, which is why the reference is to state not country or nation. The idea of having an armed populace is something Marx and Lenin argued for so that the people would not be subject to the tyranny of the state (which is why I always laugh when states like the former USSR or China call themselves Communist - Marx would turn in his grave).

[Rob C]

I prefer the interpretations of our Founders of the Constitution over yours regarding the right to bear arms.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

See the rest:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

I like your argument: if we have to base today's reality on the 1700s, and it's perfectly sound to apply, today, laws made then within the weapon parameters of then, I can see how NK feels it's got inalienable rights to be a nuke state. Just think of a nuclear device as a large fire cracker. You see, you're absolutely right and there's nothing to worry about at all!

Man, do you need a holiday!

[RSL]

i respectfully request that we close this thread.
We have been down this rabbit hole before.

Hear hear!!!!!!!!

[Alan Goldhammer]

Since fully automatic weapons are already illegal, "bump stock" should be made illegal too.

BATF already made a determination that it could not regulate "bump stocks"

[Alan Goldhammer]

I like your argument: if we have to base today's reality on the 1700s, and it's perfectly sound to apply, today, laws made then within the weapon parameters of then, I can see how NK feels it's got inalienable rights to be a nuke state. Just think of a nuclear device as a large fire cracker. You see, you're absolutely right and there's nothing to worry about at all!

Man, do you need a holiday!

Let's also not forget that slavery was OK at the time the Constitution was written (remember the 3/5 of a person rule?) and women were not permitted to vote.  The Constitution and laws evolve over time to deal with things.  No reason that the 2nd amendment cannot be reinterpreted.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Neither slavery, nor women voting, are part of the constitution, the way guns are. You are welcome, however, to attempt to change or amend it.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Neither slavery, nor women voting, are part of the constitution, the way guns are. You are welcome, however, to attempt to change or amend it.

This statement is just too weird.  There was far more debate about the clauses relating to slavery than the 2nd amendment during the framing of the Constitution.

[Rob C]

Neither slavery, nor women voting, are part of the constitution, the way guns are. You are welcome, however, to attempt to change or amend it.

We have no written Constitution in GB, AFAIK, but we do have zillions of laws. It took a while for women to get the vote here, too, and it's obvious why: men in power are terrified that women are often a lot smarter. But, just as many men are idiots, so too are some women, or they wouldn't marry the assholes that some of them do.

In the goode olde days, disputes at home were settled by a straight right or even a left hook to the face. No complications, just results. But what's a poor chap to do today, when such a natural solution is denied him? Had a great idea: buy an arsenal and go shoot at targets bearing giclée prints of the little lady!

(Guess I'd better state, just in case anyone missed it, that the latter paragraph really is tongue-in-cheek, folks - not a new departure of yours truly's mindset.)

[Alan Klein]

You constantly tell foreigners not to talk about US politics.

Your post is a non-sequitur.

[Alan Klein]

Let's also not forget that slavery was OK at the time the Constitution was written (remember the 3/5 of a person rule?) and women were not permitted to vote.  The Constitution and laws evolve over time to deal with things.  No reason that the 2nd amendment cannot be reinterpreted.

The 3/5 rule and the right for women to vote was not a re-interpretation of the Constitution.  The Constitution was formally and Amended to eliminate those constraints.  Enough people and states felt the law should be changed.  They followed the Amendment process as written in the Constitution.  They didn't declare it meant something different than what it said.

If you re-interpret the Constitution to mean whatever is convenient at the time, then you have no Constitution based on written law but law determined by man.  We dangerously become a government of man rather than a government of law.  The freedoms protected by the Constitution will be washed away over time as has happened to a great extent already. The government becomes more powerful than it ever has been, a great fear of the Founders.   If you don't like gun rights, then Amend the Constitution like we did when we gave women the right to vote.

[Alan Klein]

Nothing there contradicts my comment. A standing army was seen as a threat to the nation and to the rights of individual states. The 2nd Amendment was argued about by southern states who feared interference by an over-arching union, which is why the reference is to state not country or nation. The idea of having an armed populace is something Marx and Lenin argued for so that the people would not be subject to the tyranny of the state (which is why I always laugh when states like the former USSR or China call themselves Communist - Marx would turn in his grave).

But without an armed citizenry, you have no militia.  Also, if you read the comments by the founders that I posted previously, they were really concerned about freedom from centralized government as well as having an armed citizenry to afford personal protection against crime.  They feared a powerful central government like we've become.  It's the centralized power they saw in Europe and what they were revolting from against England's King George III.  That's why they gave most of the power to the States and People.  Regarding Communism, those states removed the right of people to be armed for the most part.  That's what dictatorial regimes do to protect their rule. 

As an aside, you saw in the Brexit vote something similar.  Brits see their power to run their own lives diminished by the gnomes in Brussels.  Outside forces who decide how they should live rather than themselves.  So like American patriots who once revolted against their own King, they revolted too.  Isn't Scotland voting to leave the Britain?  Look what's happening in Spain?  Do you think there will be civil war there?

[Alan Klein]

I like your argument: if we have to base today's reality on the 1700s, and it's perfectly sound to apply, today, laws made then within the weapon parameters of then, I can see how NK feels it's got inalienable rights to be a nuke state. Just think of a nuclear device as a large fire cracker. You see, you're absolutely right and there's nothing to worry about at all!

Man, do you need a holiday!

Weapons have evolved, that's true.  But man's base character, his ego, pride and desire to rule others has not.  The 2nd Amendment and the right to be armed is a protection against men who would want to rule over you rather than allow you to have your liberties.  Never forget that. 

[Alan Klein]

A top lawyer for CBS said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/02/top-cbs-lawyer-no-sympathy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html

[Robert Roaldi]

A top lawyer for CBS said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/02/top-cbs-lawyer-no-sympathy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html

Why did you leave out the fact that she was fired for saying that?

[Robert Roaldi]

If you re-interpret the Constitution to mean whatever is convenient at the time, then you have no Constitution based on written law but law determined by man.

Yup, ain't that the truth. So now the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean nothing like what it was originally intended.  You've hit the nail on the head.

[Littlefield]

BATF already made a determination that it could not regulate "bump stocks"

Oh, bump stocks could be made the sacrificial lamb but I doubt it.
This is bump fire
Don

[Chairman Bill]

But without an armed citizenry, you have no militia.  Also, if you read the comments by the founders that I posted previously, they were really concerned about freedom from centralized government as well as having an armed citizenry to afford personal protection against crime.  They feared a powerful central government like we've become.  It's the centralized power they saw in Europe and what they were revolting from against England's King George III.  That's why they gave most of the power to the States and People.  Regarding Communism, those states removed the right of people to be armed for the most part.  That's what dictatorial regimes do to protect their rule.

Everything you say reinforces my point - the 2nd Amendment was about ensuring the states could protect themselves against attack, whilst still avoiding the potential abuses by central government that a standing army could lead to. A well-regulated militia - a citizens' army, not a government's army. It is the same argument that Marx & Lenin used. But you've already gone down the road of having a hugely powerful standing army, whilst your armed population is far from being a well-regulated militia. Either bin the standing army & have that citizen militia or do something to amend the 2nd Amendment.

As an aside, you saw in the Brexit vote something similar.  Brits see their power to run their own lives diminished by the gnomes in Brussels.  Outside forces who decide how they should live rather than themselves.  So like American patriots who once revolted against their own King, they revolted too.  Isn't Scotland voting to leave the Britain? 

What we saw in the case of Brexit was people voting without necessarily having a clue what they were actually voting for. We've had decades of the right-wing press spreading lies & misinformation about the EU, and we had politicians spreading more lies & making false promises, and the vote reflected that. We have always had the power to run our own lives, all we did with the EU was join others in a project to offer some greater unity across Europe. We all get to elect members of the European Parliament, and our governments get to appoint the various functionaries. As for Scotland - it voted to remain part of the UK.

Look what's happening in Spain?  Do you think there will be civil war there?

I hope not.