Twitter flips the script—victims to Trump
- Thread starter CowboyUp
- Start date
Medic per your suggestion (so as not to be obtuse) I did some reading regarding the word “regulate.”
The word “regulate” and ergo the phrase “a well regulated militia” were ripe for interpretation even during the 18th century.
It honestly doesn’t matter because not even democrats are willing to try to change federal gun laws in any substantial way. You can spend hours trying to figure out what words in the constitution and B of R mean, but it’s pointless, Dems had 60 voted in Senate, most liberal president ever, and very large majority in the House and they punted, didn’t even try.Medic per your suggestion (so as not to be obtuse) I did some reading regarding the word “regulate.”
The word “regulate” and ergo the phrase “a well regulated militia” were ripe for interpretation even during the 18th century.
And I know exactly what you chose not to post in your interest of continuing to be obtuse. I get it. You accept a partisan narrative in lieu of the facts of the historical record. Some people are like that.Medic per your suggestion (so as not to be obtuse) I did some reading regarding the word “regulate.”
The word “regulate” and ergo the phrase “a well regulated militia” were ripe for interpretation even during the 18th century.
But I'll bite and spoon feed you this well written summary by someone who has taken the time to review the historical record. It will guide you through the entirety of what "well regulated" meant and what our brilliant Founders intended, IN THEIR OWN WORDS.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
You realize Obama’s executive order expanding guns bans for the mentally ill was overturned as soon as Trump became president? Lol...bullshit parade.
Carry on.
That's it? Ramble about "the system" and dems not doing something 7 years ago. Sounds exactly like the type of non-solution talking point the R's would come up with behind closed doors. Did you hear that from Hannity?
He asked you a very simple question and all you do is sputter.
No -- they truly did not realize Biff did that. How could they know from FOX? There was a talking point from Biff, the classic, "accuse the opponent of their own contention" no matter how ridiculous and they parrot it.
So, a simple question is how do you fix the mess that our govt has become?
You're definitely a f-tard. What can I really expect from a person that can't use ramble correctly. At least Dave misused a word I hadn't heard.
Hell, I'll open this up to anyone on the board.
Have I ever 'Rambled' in the history of the board?
Turns out I was right, you had no idea how to frame an argument that hasn't been made by someone else. Like when you try to be funny and crib shit.
My simple fix is for people like you to not be purposefully dumb.
Help yourself, quit letting dicks make arguments for you and find out why this shit is perpetual.
I can't ever get you to the starting line. You're happy having the same conversation because it's comfortable and framed for you.
Step out of the loop and look at all sides and get back to me.
Help yourself, quit letting dicks make arguments for you and find out why this shit is perpetual.
I can't ever get you to the starting line. You're happy having the same conversation because it's comfortable and framed for you.
Step out of the loop and look at all sides and get back to me.
Anybody else?
I practically begged for commentary on my proposed changes and so far have only gotten @Medic007 bowing down to my intelligence and insight.
This is a prime opportunity for anyone to “come at me bro!”...metaphorically speaking, of course.I’m sincerely interested in what changes others here buy into or think should be made or learning whether they think the status quo is the way to go.
Anybody else?
I practically begged for commentary on my proposed changes and so far have only gotten @Medic007 bowing down to my intelligence and insight.
I’m sincerely interested in what changes others here buy into or think should be made or learning whether they think the status quo is the way to go.
I'd vote for that yesterday.
Of your first set, I'm just opposed to militarizing schools. I guess it's an "on the table" thing for me, to but of everywhere to put resources... Which brings me to #1, below: arming teachers. Like... a half dozen teachers in a big school with discrete access to weapons, and train them. It's a cheaper alternative and provides more weapons when you need them. I really don't like that, either, but it seems the more efficient and practical imo.
2 - well, yes and no. You're right, but these people aren't exactly deep thinkers and applying logic to psychotic rage has limits. They all kind of follow each other and the copycat narrative is there. There's just a correlation between these mass shootings and AR's -- like the AR has its own symbolism to these people. You think back and think really clearly how you would cause maximum death for $1,500 -- it's not with an AR in a school.
I'd ban all manufacture and import of semi-auto weapons, period, except for LE and military. It won't do anything soon, but over time, with other restrictions, it will have a significant impact.
In the current climate I don't know that I really have a problem with it. It's insane under ordinary circumstances (i.e. non-third world, stable, prosperous, democracies) but here and now it serves its purpose. I guess I'm wishy washy on it.
Things I could get behind:
One nordic country (or Switzerland?) has everyone with a gun or two -- but they're registered, they have continuing obligations, and it works pretty well. I think it's part of their national self-defense system. Adopting an approach where it's like operating an automobile, with public health-style regs and licensure and registration, etc. to have semi-auto guns, is something I would consider.
What nobody agrees with but I'd do: Allowing strict liability for all acts committed up the chain of commerce for a firearm would also clear a lot of it up over 20 - 30 years.
I'm not interested in banning bolt actions.
Pump actions, lever actions, revolvers --- I don't know. Probably not -- I'd wanna see what happens with the semi-auto ban first.
I see Remington is teetering on bankruptcy because all the gun buying hysteria is over.
I know you're most comfortable when the thought is performed for you but, who are we throwing out? What controls are in place to keep people like you complyant? Who besides those pesky Russians inundate us with misinformation?
Constitutional laws are ever evolving. They have been since 1789.
It’s why we have a Supreme Court.
“Regulate”: to govern by restrictions (1620)
I would argue the 2nd Amendment’s “well regulated” clause was intentionally vague, meant to be open to judicial interpretation, quite the opposite of obtuse.
If the Founders had intended for no regulations (restrictions) on the militia (citizens) in the 2nd Amendment why include the “well regulated” clause at all?
In other words: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
But that’s not what the Founders left us.
I would argue the Founders included the well regulated militia clause because they believed a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state.
Last edited:
Okay Socrates, you've been asked every imaginable way and you've avoided the basic question.
Damned dems. At the end of the day, you just parrot your hero's narrative.
You also can't shoot innocent people. I have no problem with that restriction to my 2A rights.
I've always voted independent. I wanted someone from outside the system. That's why I voted for Trump.
I'm happy with that vote.
Would you favor any regulations, such as no bump stocks or other automatic attachments, and limiting magazines?
Argue all you want. The history of how and why the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, came to be is all there for you. You can try to fit it into your narrative box, but it won't fit no matter how hard you try. I posted a link for you to read regarding what "well regulated" means.
If it was all designed to be vague and open to interpretation as you say, you should be comfortable with this concept regarding the 1st Amendment...
"Let’s restrict the ability of the press to publish or produce anything until each story is vetted by multiple credible sources so fake news can’t influence society."
Sound reasonable?
You don't like the answer because it makes you look like the moron I've been describing.
Are you really hard of thinking enough to think that unwinding years of bullshit is a Basic question?
I can only point you in the right direction. You have to gain the ability to be a flexible thinker on your own. That would involve you forming your own opinion though, something you haven't shown to date.
It's hilarious that you say I'm the one parroting shit. I can find your arguments verbatim every f'n day. You're not even smart enough to change wording.
Your arguments in this thread to me are the intellectual equivalent of "I'm rubber, you're glue."
And you gloat about it. You gloat about being a moron. Think about that for awhile.
No, not at all.
No need for hypotheticals. Let the Constitution’s own words do the talking.
If they didn’t want restrictions why include the phrase at all?
They did want restrictions, restrictions on the federal government.
I've already provided you a link to read. It will answer your question with the words of the Founders. The Founders expected the citizens to be armed and able to protect themselves against any and all threats including the new federal government.
They also envisioned sensible restrictions on the populace. That’s easy to discern.
What sensible restrictions did they envision? None of the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the populace.
The Supreme Court begs to differ. There is plenty of judicial precedent that has shaped the scope of protections within it.
Start with freedom of speech as a big one for starters.
It doesn’t matter...judicial interpretation and precedence takes the front seat. It’s been that way for a long time now and will continue to be so.
Let's take a quick stroll down Chickenshit Lane. You parroted Biff's tweet -- same exact messaging, i.e. the dems' fault from 7 years ago. When pushed for specifics, you lapse into more questions, insults and finally call for flexible thinking. That alone would get someone else in your chickenshit hall of fame -- it's just a days' work for you, though.
Maybe the Mar a Lago membership had some good ideas. That's what we'll call your political philosophy -- Maralagatarianism. Literally can not articulate a policy position but just kind of blusters and bitches.
Duh, but that isn't what you posted. You posted:
followed by
And you've since failed to back that up by citing or quoting any sensible restriction on the populace found in the Bill of Rights.
Are you wanting to change your original to "Judicial interpretation has placed sensible restrictions on the populace?" I can get on board with that.
You never apply a f'n thing I say.
You're the asshole ther holds up the entire class. If you think Trump is where the evil lies, and you obviously do, you're still a pawn. You certainly 'think' like a pawn, and I'm using 'think'in the loosest terms possible. You use other people's thoughts as your own without question. You're just a loud ass moron, that spouts others opinions.
