obama not after your guns ?

brianlux

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

someone asked me if i belonged to a militia suggesting that in order to have a right to bear arms you have to belong to some sort of militia. This is wrong. dc v heller says a well "regulated" militia is just well trained and disciplined. is null and void too technical of a word?
and yes i've taught the constitution for over 15 years: ap history down to 8th grade. i think i have a slight grasp on how the constitution works.

Just chiming in from the cheap seats...

The fact that somebody teaches something for 15 years does not necessarily mean they are an expert in that field. For example, there are historians that refute the Holocaust and scientists that discredit the Theory of Evolution.

This is not meant to address you mcgruff because I have not idea how good a teacher you are but I very much agree with this statement. I taught in various positions for a number of years and found (and still do) that the more I think I know, the more I understand there is to learn. Teaching never made me an expert at anything. Being a student and a learner does more to get me closer to understanding and knowing. And good teaching, I think, is more about facilitating learning than it is about imparting information or being an expert.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Secondly... I would offer the term 'antiquated'. This term applies to the constitution. It needs revisionary work to account for the changes since it's creation and to address the needs of your country.

Do you deny the generally accepted idea that there is a gun problem in your country?

This is the part I don't get. Why the pro-gun folks keep trying to use the constitution- great though it is in many ways- to excuse or dismiss what is obvious to much of the rest of the world- that the U.S. has a major gun problem.

Last-12-Exit

mcgruff10 said:

someone asked me if i belonged to a militia suggesting that in order to have a right to bear arms you have to belong to some sort of militia. This is wrong. dc v heller says a well "regulated" militia is just well trained and disciplined. is null and void too technical of a word?
and yes i've taught the constitution for over 15 years: ap history down to 8th grade. i think i have a slight grasp on how the constitution works.

I have not taught the constitution for 15 hears, but I know a little about it. I have read dc vs heller before we started having this particular discussion. I don't remember seeing or reading that "regulated" militias were just well trained and disciplined civilians. I would like to point out this particular paragraph that came from Justice Scalia:

    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Seems pretty cut and dry that civilians should not be using weapons designed for the military.

mcgruff10

i enjoy my ar-15 a lot. circular argument going on here. have a great weekend!

Last-12-Exit

mcgruff10 said:

i enjoy my ar-15 a lot. circular argument going on here. have a great weekend!

That's directly from the supreme court case you keep citing. It seems that while you do have the right to defend yourself in your home, the supreme court agrees that civilians have no business owning or needing military weapons.

I don't see that as going in circles.

JUST A GIRL

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

Does anybody answer questions posed to them?

I asked McGruff a straight forward one a few posts back that remains unanswered despite the fact that he did submit a post since. I realize it's a tough question to answer given his position on guns, however avoiding it is poor- it's fair and it's legitimate.

rr165892

Mcgruff did you take down your posts with the links to the liberal and conservative definitions written about a milita?
I read both and wanted to reread prior to posting.
As a gun owner who does think we need some common sense changes to the gun laws and as stated before I have zero to worry about with more restrictions.I welcome any change that will impact idiots getting their hands on fire arms and may better our society by doing so.
I thought the more conservative take was a better researched,less biased explanation with other examples that lead me to agree with the author regarding what is a well regulated militia and what it is not.I thought the liberal spin was an emotionally charged ,very little fact filled article.More emotion then information and the authors anti gun stance was very evident.I didn't see that in the more informative piece.

Last-12-Exit

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

I enjoyed it when you "stayed on the side lines."

mcgruff10

rr165892 said:

Mcgruff did you take down your posts with the links to the liberal and conservative definitions written about a milita?
I read both and wanted to reread prior to posting.
As a gun owner who does think we need some common sense changes to the gun laws and as stated before I have zero to worry about with more restrictions.I welcome any change that will impact idiots getting their hands on fire arms and may better our society by doing so.
I thought the more conservative take was a better researched,less biased explanation with other examples that lead me to agree with the author regarding what is a well regulated militia and what it is not.I thought the liberal spin was an emotionally charged ,very little fact filled article.More emotion then information and the authors anti gun stance was very evident.I didn't see that in the more informative piece.

sure bud.
Liberal side: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/25/1173770/-What-IS-a-well-regulated-militia
in it they say: What does "well regulated" mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that
the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
conservative side:
http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/
there are obviously tons of web sites with different definitions; these were the two I chose as they were the first two that showed up in my search.

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

Does anybody answer questions posed to them?

I asked McGruff a straight forward one a few posts back that remains unanswered despite the fact that he did submit a post since. I realize it's a tough question to answer given his position on guns, however avoiding it is poor- it's fair and it's legitimate.

what question did you ask? I must have missed it as I was having a conversation with three different people.

mickeyrat

Last-12-Exit said:

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

I enjoyed it when you "stayed on the side lines."

wait, that actually happened??

Godfather.

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

there are too many folks on here that see no reason to own a gun and just don't understand the 2nd amendment, they ask questions that only bring light to them selfs or the anti gun cause,it seems they only have thier own interest and views in mind so asking another to give up thier gun is no problem for them but at the end of the day it makes no matter what they believe because the right to own and carry will never go away and even if by some slim chance this country went all commi on us Americans would still have thier guns and never give them up.

Godfather.

rgambs

Godfather. said:

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

there are too many folks on here that see no reason to own a gun and just don't understand the 2nd amendment, they ask questions that only bring light to them selfs or the anti gun cause,it seems they only have thier own interest and views in mind so asking another to give up thier gun is no problem for them but at the end of the day it makes no matter what they believe because the right to own and carry will never go away and even if by some slim chance this country went all commi on us Americans would still have thier guns and never give them up.

Godfather.

It's not so simple as all that. Several of the people here (myself included) who support tighter gun controls are gun owners themselves.
Wanting to take all guns and wanting wild west deregulation are the extremes, and most people are in the middle. The NRA-style idiocy that led to the OP is so far from the middle-ground it is clearly extremist.

Gern Blansten

I am a gun owner, CCP holder, etc. I support massive increases in background checks, waiting periods to cover background checks, etc. I also don't believe that the public should be allowed to purchase weapons made for police of military use.

Those beliefs do not trample on the 2nd amendment.

rgambs

Gern Blansten said:

I am a gun owner, CCP holder, etc. I support massive increases in background checks, waiting periods to cover background checks, etc. I also don't believe that the public should be allowed to purchase weapons made for police of military use.

Those beliefs do not trample on the 2nd amendment.

It would be nice if the boards had a "like" or "up/down vote" type feature so agreement could be made without clogging things up more.

Godfather.

I support back ground checks as well (criminal and Mental) but I oppose blanket back ground checks based on social security or anything else so sloppy, these people in the obama admin. do this to leave doors open to broadin the net they try and throw to make gun ownership harder for all Americans


Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Godfather. said:

I support back ground checks as well (criminal and Mental) but I oppose blanket back ground checks based on social security or anything else so sloppy, these people in the obama admin. do this to leave doors open to broadin the net they try and throw to make gun ownership harder for all Americans


Godfather.

Holy run-on sentence. And why'd you capitalize the 'M' in mental?

GF... you're as kooky as they come, but this place would be the shits without you. And don't take this the wrong way- I'm not saying anything other than you are unique.

dignin

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

Debates over AMT contributors. Mcgruff is "cleary" right. Pack up your keyboards and go home.

Gern Blansten

Godfather. said:

I support back ground checks as well (criminal and Mental) but I oppose blanket back ground checks based on social security or anything else so sloppy, these people in the obama admin. do this to leave doors open to broadin the net they try and throw to make gun ownership harder for all Americans


Godfather.

That is actually untrue and horribly ignorant. The background check for SS is to make sure someone who has admitted to being mentally disabled cannot get a weapon. It is a very efficient way to add additional restrictions to someone that is legally already restricted.

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

I support back ground checks as well (criminal and Mental) but I oppose blanket back ground checks based on social security or anything else so sloppy, these people in the obama admin. do this to leave doors open to broadin the net they try and throw to make gun ownership harder for all Americans


Godfather.

That is actually untrue and horribly ignorant. The background check for SS is to make sure someone who has admitted to being mentally disabled cannot get a weapon. It is a very efficient way to add additional restrictions to someone that is legally already restricted.

Access to pertinent database for disqualifiers. I see it as closing a gap in checks.