Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

You'll be able to make your own soon:

 

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/meet-the-krikit-25-the-diy-sheet-metal-pocket-pistol/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20160701_FridayDigest_36g&utm_campaign=/blog/meet-the-krikit-25-the-diy-sheet-metal-pocket-pistol/

 

"Between 80 percent receivers and 3D printer plans it’s easier than ever to build a firearm yourself at home. But there will never be anything cooler than building a real, working and safe-shooting (emphasis on safe-shooting) firearm from scratch when it comes to DIY street cred.

That’s exactly what Clinton Westwood has done with his pocket .25 ACP pistol, the Krikit 25. And by scratch, that means everything but the screws. The pistol frame and magazine is largely made from sheet metal and bar stock, and the round bar stock barrel was rifled by hand using a handmade jig.

This gun may be little, and chambered for the mostly-overlooked, pipsqueak .25-caliber cartridge, but it’s real, it works and in the right light, it even looks kinda neat."

 

 

Interesting.  .25 caliber...never shot that.

Edited by LeesburgSkinFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What militia means is pretty easy.

even for an idiot like me who barely escaped the 4th grade, dictionaries are easy to find.

A militia may be made up of civilians, but it is to be 'well organized'. 

And to me, that means at the absolute very least you should know which militia you belong to,, or where to report if called upon by the various militia acts.

 

I think you should read up to Peter's comment and then the after... the US defined "militia" in this regard in 1903.

It also shows in his link that the males between 18-45 could be CONSCRIPTED.. (ie: "forced")  to their local militia company when called, so something of the sort actually existed..  and then in 1903, was defined by law as the national guard.

(I would assume that today if such dire need occurred, we'd be instructed to get our gun and report  our local Nat'l guard armories.)

The purpose of the second was not to stand up TO the National guard, but as defined by the US, to become the national guard.

In fact, the "National guard" wasn't even defined until well after the second was written, and even the earliest militias on the continent were designated by units

"The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. "

This does not at all read to be the chaotic practice we have now, but a much more controlled and organized envronment..

 and in 1903 it went the last step to say that the National guard is the recognized state militia, and even state defense forces fall under their command.

 

 (i would say it is definitely a correct assumption to make that it also means to protect ourselves from our own if it becomes tyrannical. but mostly i think it is intended for foreign invaders. In the old days we weren't the only nations within our current borders. Potential foreign enemies were not far away. nowadays, i think we're unassailable in regard to foreign invading forces.)

 

it is interesting how we will adhere to law and interpret it when convenient,, but when the law also defines what the militia is, well then it's just 'wrong'.

 

My dollar is still here.

 

 

 

~Bang

In order to have a "militia" of any kind, be it well regulated, or sorta regulated, or poorly regulated, the people have to have the right to bear arms. Otherwise, the militia is just a club that meets occasionally and grills in the woods.

 

Additionally, the left led the assault on actual private militias that demonized them and made them taboo. If you meet someone who claims to be a member of a militia, it is automatically assumed you are a conspiracy theorist loony, and are likely on an FBI watch list (which the left would like to use to forbid you from owning a firearm - read the article linked earlier that wants to grant the AG the right to deny rights to Americans without due process because they are on a watch list). 

 

So to summarize, Bang thinks you should have to be a member of a well regulated militia in order to own a gun. Being a member of a well regulated militia can easily get you on a watch list of the FBI. Democratic politicians want to make it illegal for anyone on an FBI watch list from owning a gun.

 

Wanna tell me again that no one wants to take away guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really worth shooting.

 

unless you want to shoot someone 6 times and watch them run away from you.

 

or worse, beat you silly after they find a stick or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh no.  The principal authors of the Bill of rights clearly defined what militia meant at the time it was written.  We can argue the semantics of what it means now, or what it was defined to mean in 1903,  but that has nothing to do with the meaning at the time it was written, or the clear intent from the words of those involved in writing it.    It was absolutely meant to provide an armed populace as a deterrent against the government.  How can Masons own words be construed to mean anything else?  How about Madison's words? He had a little something to do with the penning of the Bill of Rights. 

 

 

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

James Madison

 

 

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Alexander Hamilton

 

 

 

The words of the authors themselves make the intent and reason of the 2nd amendment crystal clear.   Making it out to be anything other than what they themselves stated is revisionist. 

 

OK, but during the course of our history, the definition was further defined and honed by laws... beginning right after the founding, in fact. 

Why don't we recognize them?

Basically this says all is null and void except what was said directly at the founding of the country.

 

for the record, i never said i believe anyone should be.. in fact, i think the civilian militia for the defense of the state notion to be another of those obsolete things that folks hold on to.

i just find it irritating that in the due course of sales we have decided that part of it all isn't really important, and basically has no meaning at all.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Militias were expected to provide their own firearm (either rifle or sidearm, or both).

 

This isn't true during the Constitutional period.  The Constitution specifically gives that power to Congress.

 

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

 

And it gives the states power to appoint the officers of the militia.

 

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Alexander Hamilton

 

I'm actually pretty sure that Hamilton never said that.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to have a "militia" of any kind, be it well regulated, or sorta regulated, or poorly regulated, the people have to have the right to bear arms. Otherwise, the militia is just a club that meets occasionally and grills in the woods.

. . . According to this rule, that I've just made up. And I'm backing it up, with this gun that I just got, from the NRA.

(That's a reference to a comedy routine, if you weren't aware. Please pretend that you aren't aware of how well it fits your argument.)

 

Additionally, the left led the assault on actual private militias that demonized them and made them taboo. If you meet someone who claims to be a member of a militia, it is automatically assumed you are a conspiracy theorist loony, and are likely on an FBI watch list (which the left would like to use to forbid you from owning a firearm - read the article linked earlier that wants to grant the AG the right to deny rights to Americans without due process because they are on a watch list).

 

The fact that said stereotype is accurate is simply dismissed with a wave of the hand, and an attempted Jedi Mind Trick. 

 

But then, for example, I'm sure that it was The Left that made all of those self-appointed (and therefore, I will point out, unconstitutional) "militias" show up to help "defend" a bunch of armed bird-watchers.

So to summarize, Bang thinks you should have to be a member of a well regulated militia in order to own a gun.

Could you quote us where he said that?

(I'm not 100% certain that he didn't, since the BS has been so deep in here for what seems like a day that I'm about to pass out from lack of Oxygen. But I don't recall anybody actually saying that.) 

 

(Well, other than those pesky Constitutional Scholars pointing out that, for 200 years, yes, that was the way the Constitution was interpreted.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you quote us where he said that?

(I'm not 100% certain that he didn't, since the BS has been so deep in here for what seems like a day that I'm about to pass out from lack of Oxygen. But I don't recall anybody actually saying that.) 

 

(Well, other than those pesky Constitutional Scholars pointing out that, for 200 years, yes, that was the way the Constitution was interpreted.) 

 

Nah, i didn't say it. I snarkily asked which militia everyone belonged to.. you know, hear some neighborhood unit pride.

Predictably, i was told there was never any intention to form any militias as defined in any way other than "everybody gets a gun"

 

(Sorry Pope,, i know i over-simplified your position, there. I think you'd find i agree with you on the right to keep and bear arms, but disagree on the semantics of the militia part, and am flat out disgusted by the NRA who decided only the part of the amendment that affected sales would be regarded.)

FTR, i think the whole militia thing is out the window, by both willfull ignorance of it, and obsolete notions of foreign invaders and being able to overthrow the government. ...which we maybe COULD, so  long as the military cooperates...  but, of all things to fear, i think this one is way way way down on the list, no matter how much ratings-hungry fear factories and sales hungry "rights advocates" like to tell us tyranny is already well entrenched..   but support your police and troops, because they are never ever part of any governmental crackdowns... ? The illogical lunacy and doublespeaking contradictions of it all are astounding.

As far as a foreign invader..  no way, no how. It's simply tactically impossible..   but in 1781 it wasn't. 

 

Frankly, what frightens me way more than the shadowy paranoia device known as "the government' is the propagandists who are pushing for all out civil war. Fear and anger,, easiest two things to create and manipulate..

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you quote us where he said that?

(I'm not 100% certain that he didn't, since the BS has been so deep in here for what seems like a day that I'm about to pass out from lack of Oxygen. But I don't recall anybody actually saying that.)

(Well, other than those pesky Constitutional Scholars pointing out that, for 200 years, yes, that was the way the Constitution was interpreted.)

See Larry, I never said Bang said that. I was illustrating the closed circuit that is used over and over. The argument of the militia. The stigmatism attached to militias. And the proposed legislation to deny a right based on suspicion alone with no due process. With the way our government operates, they never cede power back once they get it. So if the AG is able to deny a right by shear suspicion, how long will it be before they start mass suspicion lists? A little hyperbole here on my part. But that argument is used for other rights repeatedly. Why isn't it valid for the 2nd?

(Sorry Pope,, i know i over-simplified your position, there. I think you'd find i agree with you on the right to keep and bear arms, but disagree on the semantics of the militia part, and am flat out disgusted by the NRA who decided only the part of the amendment that affected sales would be regarded.)

FTR, i think the whole militia thing is out the window, by both willfull ignorance of it, and obsolete notions of foreign invaders and being able to overthrow the government. ...which we maybe COULD, so long as the military cooperates... but, of all things to fear, i think this one is way way way down on the list, no matter how much ratings-hungry fear factories and sales hungry "rights advocates" like to tell us tyranny is already well entrenched.. but support your police and troops, because they are never ever part of any governmental crackdowns... ? The illogical lunacy and doublespeaking contradictions of it all are astounding.

As far as a foreign invader.. no way, no how. It's simply tactically impossible.. but in 1781 it wasn't.

Frankly, what frightens me way more than the shadowy paranoia device known as "the government' is the propagandists who are pushing for all out civil war. Fear and anger,, easiest two things to create and manipulate..

~Bang

No worries. Guns aren't going anywhere. At least anytime soon. And I have 0 guns in my house with a 5 year old.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take our guns back in a time machine and see how the founding fathers react when we hand them to slaves.

"Well regulated militia" probably meant, "organized by the plantation owner." Jefferson used the words "civil power" in the Declaration - certainly not a fan of standing, regular armies.

Imagine the issues we would have if we allowed militias the same power now - Trayvon vs. Zimmerman x10.

Quite honestly gang members and possibly drug addicts would be hunted and hung at gallows for all to see if we worshipped their way of life the way we do the Constitution.

... all that to mean the world is gobs more complex than the ff envisioned... certainly way more civilized and docile than they could contemplate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but during the course of our history, the definition was further defined and honed by laws... beginning right after the founding, in fact. 

Why don't we recognize them?

Basically this says all is null and void except what was said directly at the founding of the country.

 

for the record, i never said i believe anyone should be.. in fact, i think the civilian militia for the defense of the state notion to be another of those obsolete things that folks hold on to.

i just find it irritating that in the due course of sales we have decided that part of it all isn't really important, and basically has no meaning at all.

 

~Bang

 

I don't think we should change the meaning of an amendment just because we've changed the meaning of a word it contains.  While difficult,  there are constitutionally correct ways to modify it,  and that's how it should be done IMO.   

 

I do believe the amendment gives room for regulation,  just not up to the point of preventing ownership to law abiding citizens.   I've no problem with reasonable regulation.   My right to be armed is not infringed by having to have a background check,  or wait 2 weeks and so on.    I don't support the NRA's insistence that there are no restrictions that are reasonable.  Frankly I see that as the most likely cause of my loss of freedom as things get pushed to a breaking point where drastic measures are furthered that will infringe on my right to ownership.  Something that could be avoided with reasonable compromise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the laws California just passed, I will say it givens reason for gun rights people to be worried. I disagree with pretty much everything cali does with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still think separating (currently legal) firearms into two categories makes sense. Extremely relaxed regulation for guns that don't hold clips, stringent regulation (and registration) for those that do.

No (currently legal) guns are banned. Someone who feels they need one suddenly for self defense (or sport) can get one quickly.

Of course, it would still run contrary to the interests of gun show sellers, but that can be worked around to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still think separating (currently legal) firearms into two categories makes sense. Extremely relaxed regulation for guns that don't hold clips, stringent regulation (and registration) for those that do.

That's pretty much where I am. I think tighter regulations on "assault weapons" makes sense. But I want "assault weapons" defined as "semi automatic weapons which take removable magazines that hold more than six rounds".

(And I think we also know that California's laws won't work. At least not perfectly. Because they can't enforce their border. And people will point at that and claim that therefore we shouldn't try.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would those "stringent regulations" be and what type of guns would they affect?

Dunno about the regulations really. Something that would at least moderately appease the gun control crowd - primarily aimed at trying to prevent mass shootings and criminals getting (at least certain) guns... some kind of fairly extensive background check and psychological eval.

Obviously the tricky part is 1) deciding how to work the evaluations, 2) how to pay for them and 3) getting congress and the general population to agree.

What I like about this idea is that it still allows ease of access, doesn't outright ban any guns, doesn't mess with concealed carry (and open carry) laws, doesn't affect ammo sales. On the other hand, in theory anyway, it works towards limiting the people with (hopefully fairly specific) mental issues from getting the type of guns typically used in mass shootings.

Obviously it would have to include a lot more details, but that's the gist of it. Does that make sense?

What do you think would be a logical step, regulation-wise, to trying to prevent those with anger, hate or resentment issues being able to get their hands on a gun that can fire a significant amount of bullets in a short time (and taking it out on innocents)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much where I am. I think tighter regulations on "assault weapons" makes sense. But I want "assault weapons" defined as "semi automatic weapons which take removable magazines that hold more than six rounds".

(And I think we also know that California's laws won't work. At least not perfectly. Because they can't enforce their border. And people will point at that and claim that therefore we shouldn't try.)

Yeah, its my best attempt at trying to appease both sides. Nothing will be perfect, but this at least nullifies (or attempts to) the "good guy with a gun argument", the "someone may need a gun quickly for self defense", the idea that "they're coming for our guns", etc. I feel like if we can get many of those arguments out of the way, it makes the conversation marginally easier. An attempt at a middle ground that would probably piss off both extremes... which means we'd be on the right path, lol.

Edit: sorry, should have lumped this in with my previous post. :(

Edited by skinny21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply think of it as a characteristic (removable, high capacity clips) which (near as I can tell) recreational users don't need, but which psycho mass shooters do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply think of it as a characteristic (removable, high capacity clips) which (near as I can tell) recreational users don't need, but which psycho mass shooters do.

As much as I'm scared of what the decision might be, we really need the SC to tell us what the 2nd means. Depending on who you talk to, what a "recreational shooter" needs doesn't mean squat depending on you definition of the 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'm scared of what the decision might be, we really need the SC to tell us what the 2nd means. Depending on who you talk to, what a "recreational shooter" needs doesn't mean squat depending on you definition of the 2nd.

It doesn't matter "what it means".

There is no such thing as a constitutional right that cannot be limited in order to protect people's lives. All being a constitutional right means, is that you have to have a good reason, to limit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply think of it as a characteristic (removable, high capacity clips) which (near as I can tell) recreational users don't need, but which psycho mass shooters do.

 

changing the size of clips will not stop them,but if it makes you feel safer go ahead and try.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter "what it means".

There is no such thing as a constitutional right that cannot be limited in order to protect people's lives. All being a constitutional right means, is that you have to have a good reason, to limit it.

Doesn't matter what it means? Good to know. Thanks Larry.

I meant was the SC needs to tell the people what the "MILITIA" part means and how it affects everyone. Tired of all this back and forth. Someone needs to decide what the second gives us and make one set of rules across the board.

Edit: I've had a few ****tails so I hope what I meant got across.

Edited by TheGreatBuzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best as I can tell, "militia" means the state National Guards plus the auxiliary of able bodied 17 to 45 year old males - as defined by Congress.

Quite frankly, I think state NG deployments as Federal forces would make Jefferson roll in his grave.

I am not sure anyone had challenged this setup to the Supreme Court...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best as I can tell, "militia" means the state National Guards plus the auxiliary of able bodied 17 to 45 year old males - as defined by Congress.

Actually, it means the National Guard. (And, I'm not sure if things like the Army Reserve also count).

That whole "able bodied men 18-45" or whatever? Congress scrapped it. 100 years ago.

Quite frankly, I think state NG deployments as Federal forces would make Jefferson roll in his grave.

Even though the constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to create the rules for calling up the militia? Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.