The nearly 100 year old act that banned machine guns and silencers? Sure, let's talk about that one, and we can also discuss the various ways to circumvent the act by using legal add-on accessories that make weapons fully automatic.
History of the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter DavidGraeberBullSheetJobs
- Start date
I'm not playing question tennis with you. I didn't think you'd be able to answer my question, and I was not wrong.
I’m trying to explain your premise is incorrect, and leads to a faulty conclusion.
If it were correct you’d answer my questions, not run from them.
He did, in this case, with little, if any opposition from democrats. Did all the republicans support it?
Support what? The executive action that did not require congress? Hmm wonder why no balls Obama didn’t do it 🤔
Lol... Similarly, if you were correct, you wouldn't run from the one question I posed.
Machine guns and silencers haven't been banned. It only requires passing an enhanced background check and paying extra fees.
Turning a non-machine gun into a machine gun is also covered. It doesn't matter how it became a machine gun. It's not illegal as long as it goes through the ATF process.
Last edited:
It's. Was that fully backed by republicans in Congress?
On October 4, 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill to ban bump stocks,[1] but it was not acted upon. Instead, on February 20, 2018, President Trump instructed the ATF to issue regulations to treat bump stocks as machineguns.
He likes to ask questions but does not like to answer them. He also likes to play a LOT of drivel.
There are like a dozen posters on this site that push that point of view from time to time, liberal and conservative. I always just associate it with libertarianism.
Yea, lets discuss it - why does it regulate items that are legal in gun control havens such as Canada and many Euro countries?
Also, please link these legal add-ons. And while you're doing that maybe read up on how the ATF, since 1981, considers the possession of an auto sear akin to owning a machine gun.
Last edited:
This question?
“And how did, "well regulated" turn into no regulations at all?”
Congress is negligent. What other answer is there?
That is not a militia...neither then nor now. Here's a little reading for you.
The Militia Act of 1792
constitution.org
Sorry, you never addressed the Obama failure. He probably didn’t care because it was not a generally Dem crowd in Vegas.
Allrighty, how about Jeff Rosen (president of National Constitution Center) and a Pulitzer Prize winning author and poly-sci / law professor at Harvard both contracted by CNN?
What did it mean to be well regulated?
One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings
of words change or diverge.
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed,
well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in
that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather
that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
And you still owe me that link of legal auto sears..... (unless, of course, you're talking out of your ass and they dont exist)
He wasn't President during the Las Vegas shooting you idiot. The bump stock was not widely known until after that. The original bump stock was outlawed by the ATF but then was later allowed when a different company altered the design a bit. There was also a court case that allowed gun owners to modify their weapons with such devices.
The short answer is it was never an issue before the Las Vegas shooting. There was no reason to outlaw it - and then there was.
Not true. They became popular during no balls Obama’s reign of cowardice. Awesome that we got the health insurance company handout passed.
Wrong again.
The modern version of the "Akins Accelerator", otherwise known as the bump stock, was virtually unheard of by the average American until last year. On October 1, 2017, millionaire gambler and real estate mogul Stephen Paddock, 64, opened fire on a crowd of hundreds at a country music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada. Unbeknownst to anyone, Paddock had managed to transport an arsenal of 23 guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition into a hotel suite on the 32nd floor at the Mandalay Bay hotel and resort. Along with Paddock's arsenal of weapons, he also rigged a complex surveillance system using hidden cameras outside his room to monitor activity in the hallway.
You cannot read. Virtually unheard of by the average American does not mean they weren’t widely used by idiots pretending they’re playing call of duty at the target range. The government’s responsibility is to solve things before 70 people are massacred.
False premise.
That’s why I pointed out the Supreme Court’s observation of the rights of citizens unmoored to any expectation of militia service.
The idea that people only had the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to service in the militia doesn’t exist for more than a century after the Bill of Rights was drafted, debated and adopted.
Looking through the state submissions for consideration in the Bill of Rights would clear up your confusion on this subject. You won’t find requests to protect the right to keep and bear arms dependent upon any service in the active militia.
Nothing wrong with stirring up a little controversy with the truth and cogent argument.
You, by contrast have merely engaged in calling the OP names.
You are an embarrassment.
Ironic to say the least. No, 50% of households didn’t own bump stocks. You’re a fool to think “popular” meant anything other than popular within the community of mouth breathers who possess ar 15s. Again, you fail because you cannot think for yourself. Now go get more marching orders and laugh at the post. Predictably a puppet.
Now do federal income taxes! Everyone knows you don’t pay them sweetheart 😃You are correct that every major capitalist state today has gained or consolidated its power through imperialism genocide and oppression. I suppose that means in your book that it’s right and that’s the best we can do, correct? If we continue on this path, we will slide into civil war and world war and we will destroy the rest of the ecosystem and we will all die.
As much as gaslighting and trolling is annoying, I can’t imagine that anyone on these boards would want the above.
Columbia University press recently published the most extensive study of the actual cost of imperialism. For example India by good estimates was responsible for 25% of global GDP at one point, which is why the British were so interested in controlling it, as well as in the century before the UK took over the first true corporate venture in history, the dutch east India company, which itself operated its own private mercenary army, the white west eliminated or preyed upon black and brown people all over the world.
yes, the roots of both the modern state and corporations are as brutal and bloody as imaginable, and they remain so today. We canning must do better or we truly are all doomed. And we need to provide compensation to the people who have been appropriated from either recently or historically because the extent of the inequality will only make certain mutually destructive and apocalyptic war.
I am not a utopian. I am a pragmatist. I can see very clearly that what we’ve done and what we continue to do is not just unsustainable, but sliding faster than I ever imagined towards general annihilation and ecocide.
The need for “militia” is not the same as it was in the 1780’s.
we now gave a standing federal military plus each state has its National Guard. Times change as does the meanings of words. Use your goddamned brain.
You were correct with the bump stock response. It was an oversite on my part that Trump recommended reclassification.
With regard to the meaning of "well-regulated" and how terms change over time, I disagree. While Rosen has credibility as a scholar, he's offering an opinion in the reference you cite . And it could be argued either way. All we're ultimately left with are the actual words of the amendment. To that end, yes, different arbiters come to different conclusions over time. Roe v wade is a great example, which is to say, no law is permanent, all are subject to change. Change typically driven by politics rather than newly discovered empirical evidence.
One very big difference b/w the 2nd and RvW, is abortion is a (at best) very unenumerated right. The 2nd is about as enumerated as possible. For a group that likes to mince words, I don't see too much arguing around "the right of the people shall not be infringed".
I understand what an unenumerated right is, and I agree with how you framed it here. However, my reason for mentioning RVW was to draw an analogy that laws/regulations/rights are not permanent and subject to change over time. Also, I don't believe reasonable regulation is an infringement. You yourself cited regulations that started in the 30s. Can I own a supersonic jet with smart bombs? No, because it's against the law. And it should be. I don't consider that an infringement on my rights.
No. I'm suggesting that anytime meaningful, reasonable regulations are introduced, there are 50 senators who refuse to vote on it. Do you disagree?
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Players file lawsuit against state for privacy rights violations
- Latest: WaterlooChazz