Plan B Forum

I made it more than half way through, almost two-thirds actually, but now my head hurts too much to finish.

(Maybe later?) (Alligator?)

Anyway, kudos to Jon Stewart for keeping cool, calm and collected, and for not letting his brain explode—at least not during the part I watched. That Oklahoma State Senator he was interviewing is the guy God was referring to when He tweeted the comment expressed below in my signature.

The problem lies in the individual--not the gun. O K ? So keep the guns and reduce the number individuals.?

Nobody believes, not even this gentleman from Oklahoma, believes in the 2nd amendment. It plainly states that the way to regulate the militia is to not infringe on the right of the people to have guns. NOBODY advocates this. Should habitual felons not have their right to bear arms infringed? Should Any individual who has the resources to do it be permitted to construct their own hydrogen bomb? Should individuals with the mental capacities of a 5-year-old child and the biological age of 25 and in good physical health, except they are blind and stone deaf, be allowed to bear a sawed off shotgun? (I know of know no federal law that prohibits such a person from voting in federal elections---perhaps that helps explain some recent events.)

OK, let's restrict 'arms' to devices that our founding fathers in 1791 would have been familiar with. Who would say society, even the Jacksonian yeoman farmer society ideal in Virginia in 1791, after the Bill of Rights had been approved, would say there should be no government objection to giving a petard into the hand of such an individual described lastly above, particularly when they were holding a burning stick in the other hand?

Nobody REALLY wants the 2nd amendment, strictly applied.

But I believe Mr. Stewart is also onto something. The curve of wrongful deaths by firearms in increasing, and so is the curve of governmental regulation of such devices. Is there adequate objective data to show the second of these curves is reducing the first? I believe there is some such data that shows the limitation on magazine capacity was followed by a desirable downturn of deaths from 'assault rifle-style' shootings, but not the overall firearms deaths.
That is also my belief, not an assertion of fact.

Many Americans with a position similar to this gentleman from Oklahoma, are fond of the statement "an armed society is a polite society." For those who believe this, I ask them to ponder the recommendations of George Bernard Shaw, that the functions of law enforcement and the judicial courts be turned entirely over to the the Post Office. This was back in the day when the mail was delivered to many homes twice daily. Perhaps we should adopt GBS's suggestion but give it now to Amazon.

snailgate

Why is it that these Republican gun wackos always seem to remember the second part of the amendment — 'shall not be infringed' — but manage to completely ignore the first part ... the section that refers to a

W E L L   ‒   R E G U L A T E D

militia??

Or did 'REGULATE' have an entirely different meaning in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, than it does now?

I have no problem with 'regulating' the ownership of firearms in much the same manner as the way we regulate things like drivers, pilots, doctors, lawyers, aircraft, and even bartenders — registration of the appropriate device (such as cars, trucks, airplanes boats — and yes, guns) along with training in and demonstrated proficiency of the requisite skills pursuant to the activity before a license is granted.

-"BB"-

Or did 'REGULATE' have an entirely different meaning in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, than it does now?

Of course it did. "Well-regulated" in that case meant "properly-equipped" and "in proper working order." (Even now, figuring out powder loads for a gun is usually called "regulating" the charge.)

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 04, 2023 4:31 pm

Or did 'REGULATE' have an entirely different meaning in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, than it does now?

Of course it did. "Well-regulated" in that case meant "properly-equipped" and "in proper working order." (Even now, figuring out powder loads for a gun is usually called "regulating" the charge.)

Did you have prunes for breakfast?   Because that's a pretty good load of shit there.

Regulating the charge = controlling the charge, not "well-equipping" the charge or "properly working" the charge.

I'm sorry, you're wrong — but thanks for playing!  Johnny, what do we have today for Mr. Jarlaxle?
......Well, Bill, all our departing contestants today will receive a FREE COPY of the U.S. Constitution, along with the latest edition of Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, so they can look up those pesky words like the one that tripped him up today...   along with our thanks for playing "Are You Stupid Enough To Be A Republican Congressman?"

-"BB"- 

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.

Just about every word or phrase in that sentence means something other than its commonly understood 20th/21st century meaning.

"regulated"
"well regulated"
"well-regulated"
"Militia"
"militia"
"necessary"
"security"
"free"
"State"
"state"
"free State"
"free state"
"security of a free state"
"the people"
"keep"
"bear"
"keep and bear"
"Arms"
"arms"
"keep and bear arms"
...and last but not least "infringed" [/list]

The definition, meaning, intent, implication, and significance of each of these terms can be (and has been) debated ad infinitum. It's way beyond about time to *AMEND* the Second Amendment for the purpose of clarifying its meaning(s) and settling at least some of the arguments.

I agree. I would like something like this for a start:

No private citizen shall possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Congress and the States shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear any arms not thus prohibited; anyone convicted of high crimes may be proscribed from possessing firearms as part of his or her criminal sentence.

Under no circumstances shall "chemical weapons" include firearms of any type, or any weapon that uses a chemical reaction to propel a projectile.

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:56 am

I agree. I would like something like this for a start:

No private citizen shall possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Congress and the States shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear any arms not thus prohibited; anyone convicted of high crimes may be proscribed from possessing firearms as part of his or her criminal sentence.

Under no circumstances shall "chemical weapons" include firearms of any type, or any weapon that uses a chemical reaction to propel a projectile.

I'll have one of these, please

Those are nice to have if you do a lot of driving through high crime neighborhoods.

Joe Guy wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 05, 2023 7:17 am

Those are nice to have if you do a lot of driving through high crime neighborhoods.

The drawbacks, though, are that there's no trunk space, works best with a crew of at least two (four if you plan on using the oversized breechloader), and the gas mileage sucks.  And it's a long way to the dealership when you need service under warranty.

-"BB"-

Yes, we should all have the right to keep and bear tanks. What could possibly go wrong?



https://youtu.be/Q6UBW0wrB18

It's perfectly legal to own a tank-indeed, there is a place in Hudson where you can DRIVE one. Even now...if the weapons are inoperative or removed, there are very few restrictions. There is a guy in the Lake George area who has a registered, street-driven armored car, I think either a Crosley Saladin or a Daimler Ferret.

OK so the tank is good . . . provided the arms are removed (or "weapons" for those who don't like to remove "arms")

So can I have one of these please and thank you? (er . . . not the soldier)



Doesn't seem to violate the very sensible "nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons" restriction on the 2nd Amendment. So it's OK, right?

Those are nice to have if you do a lot of walking through high crime neighborhoods.

Go for it. They're expensive, impractical, and probably more dangerous to you than anyone else, but sure. Be aware, you will need a CDL with haz-mat endorsement and an appropriately-marked and permitted vehicle (Explosives 1.2, I think) to transport it.

I noted "weapons removed" when noting that EVEN NOW there actually aren't many limits on armored vehicles.

But I believe the air-rifle has been declared by the Pope (perhaps 400 years ago) as sinful and unholy. As I remember it, mostly because it was silent and sneaky.

As I recall my military indoctrination in the early 60's, the most dangerous weapon was the motivated, human imagination.

snailgate

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:59 pm

Go for it . . . I noted "weapons removed" when noting that EVEN NOW there actually aren't many limits on armored vehicles.

So there are at least two instances where you accept restrictions on the right to bear arms other than the three you previously stated were the only acceptable restrictions?

That's good. Thank you

(Tanks a lot?)

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:20 am

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:59 pm

Go for it . . . I noted "weapons removed" when noting that EVEN NOW there actually aren't many limits on armored vehicles.

So there are at least two instances where you accept restrictions on the right to bear arms other than the three you previously stated were the only acceptable restrictions?

That's good. Thank you

(Tanks a lot?)

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Hardly surprising. You endorse the removal of all restrictions on "arms" other than nuclear, chemical and something else (can't be bothered to scroll down). But you appear to accept that restrictions on the ownership of tank guns and bazookas is reasonable.

Or are you wishing that we were able to obtain and legally use such arms?