TRACKER1 wrote to DR. WHAT <=-
I was thinking more along the lines of a lot of people like to hunt
wildlife and need guns to do so.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendmend is not about hunting. It's about being able to resist tyranny. Which is why the Left is to eager to explain the 2nd Amendment away.
Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose is completely clear. Every man of age (18yo) was required to own the most common firearm of the time along with some ammo. It was definitely not for hunting but for common defense. I don't think anyone involved in
the discussion of the second amendment had any inclination to tether it
to any government body, because at the time, it was obvious that has
that right... which is why it's defined as a *right* to bear arms.
DR. WHAT wrote to TRACKER1 <=-
@VIA: DMINE
@MSGID: <609290C5.2051.dove-firearms@dmine.net>
@REPLY: <609175D4.501.dove-firearms@roughneckbbs.com>
Tracker1 wrote to Dr. What <=-
Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose is completely clear. Every man of age (18yo) was required to own the most common firearm of the time along with some ammo. It was definitely not for hunting but for common defense. I don't think anyone involved in
the discussion of the second amendment had any inclination to tether it
to any government body, because at the time, it was obvious that has
that right... which is why it's defined as a *right* to bear arms.
Correct.
And on top of that, there's the Leftie propaganda that the Constitution **grants** us rights. It does not. It only calls out the fact that we have rights and that those rights existed before the gov't existed.
The people have all rights and, through the Constitution, grants the
gov't power.
Of course, Lefties want to pretend that none of this exists.
... Insanity is just a state of mind.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
= Synchronet = Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 - Fredericksburg, VA USA
JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to TRACKER1 <=-
Not only that, the "RIGHT" existed BEFORE the constitution. The constitution just prevents the GOVERNMENT from infringing... Or is SUPPOSED to prevent it, but there have been more and more infringements over time... :-(
Tracker1 wrote to Dr. What <=-
I was thinking more along the lines of a lot of people like to hunt
wildlife and need guns to do so.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendmend is not about hunting. It's about being able to resis
tyranny. Which is why the Left is to eager to explain the 2nd Amendment away.
Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose is completely
clear. Every man of age (18yo) was required to own the most common firearm of
the time along with some ammo. It was definitely not for hunting but for comm
defense. I don't think anyone involved in
the discussion of the second amendment had any inclination to tether it to any government body, because at the time, it was obvious that has that right... which is why it's defined as a *right* to bear arms.
Let us also not forget what the Founding Fathers thought about permanent, standing
armies. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a
people's] freedom” and “completely adverse” to the “spirit
of this country.”
Pretty smart guys, those Founding Fathers. They were able to see 200 years into th
future.
... The number you have dialed...Nine-one-one...has been changed.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendmend is not about hunting. It's about being able to resist tyranny. Which is why the Left is to eager to explain the 2nd Amendment
away.
Have you contacted your Senators to oppose HR 8 and HR 1446 yet?
Oh, ya. But the Senators from Michigan are both hard lefties. One rode Biden's scam to reelection this last year.
So I have no hope that they will listen to their constituents.
You might remind them that there are a lot of people in Michigan that like to hunt.
* SLMR 2.1a * So many messages ... So little time left.
Re: Re: Breaking Newsyet?
By: Dumas Walker to DR. WHAT on Sat Apr 10 2021 06:15 pm
Have you contacted your Senators to oppose HR 8 and HR 1446
Oh, ya. But the Senators from Michigan are both hard lefties. One rode Biden's scam to reelection this last year.
So I have no hope that they will listen to their constituents.
You might remind them that there are a lot of people in Michigan that like to hunt.
* SLMR 2.1a * So many messages ... So little time left.
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The are gun enthusiasts known as Fudds that believe only a narrow selection ofhunting
rifles should e xist because that is what they specifically use. SomeFudds
are as worse as anti-gunners because they are too narrow minded to seethe
self defense and other shooting sports and disciplines as on being any value.
---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
Re: Re: Breaking News
By: Dumas Walker to DR. WHAT on Sat Apr 10 2021 06:15 pm
yet?Have you contacted your Senators to oppose HR 8 and HR 1446
Oh, ya. But the Senators from Michigan are both hard lefties. One rode Biden's scam to reelection this last year.
So I have no hope that they will listen to their constituents.
You might remind them that there are a lot of people in Michigan that like to hunt.
* SLMR 2.1a * So many messages ... So little time left.
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The are gun enthusiasts known as Fudds that believe only a narrow selection ofhunting
rifles should e xist because that is what they specifically use. SomeFudds
are as worse as anti-gunners because they are too narrow minded to seethe
self defense and other shooting sports and disciplines as on being any value.
---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
I have firearms of all sorts, from single shot .22 rifles up to the evil, scary "modern sporting rifle." Of all of them I have yet to find a
favorite to shoot. Depends on the type of shooting I feel like doing that day.
The point is... there are a wide variety of shooting types, sports, activities and disciplines. I enjoy most, if not all of them. It's my RIGHT to be able to do so, and nobody has the RIGHT to restrict my ability to enjoy them. As far as I'm concerned, every single firearms restriction on the law books is unconstitutional. If you want to punish gun crimes, make sentences more severe for the commission of a crime while using a gun. If you want to limit a population's ability to protect itself, then you
make gun ownership more difficult...
Regards,
-==*>Weatherman<*==-
The other day I heard there were over 20,000 gun laws at the state level. Instead fo creating new laws, I would advise they look at the exsiting laws that are not working towards making people safe rather than create new laws that hurt legal gun owners. The Second exists as part of our given right to
Moondog wrote to Weatherman <=-
The other day I heard there were over 20,000 gun laws at the state
level. Instead fo creating new laws, I would advise they look at the exsiting laws that are not working towards making people safe rather
than create new laws that hurt legal gun owners.
This is why the number of laws is always increasing and never decreasing.
I suspect it is also an attempt at artificially inflating the economy. If you
have too many people on unemployment you may create a lot of laws that generate the need for extra accounting in firms and families, so they need to
hire more accountants and lawyers.
DR. WHAT wrote to MOONDOG <=-
The other day I heard there were over 20,000 gun laws at the state
level. Instead fo creating new laws, I would advise they look at the exsiting laws that are not working towards making people safe rather
than create new laws that hurt legal gun owners.
But you need to remember that the PURPOSE of most of those gun laws is
to harass legal gun owners. Criminals don't obey laws (hence, the
reason they are criminals), so passing a law doesn't impact a criminal
in any way.
The other day I heard there were over 20,000 gun laws at the state level. Instead fo creating new laws, I would advise they look at the exsiting laws that are not working towards making people safe rather than create new laws that hurt legal gun owners.
The Second exists as part of our given right to
defend ourselves, and that's where it hurts me to hear folks who only believe it was there because the founding fathers liked shooting squirrels or punching holes in targets.
If too many people are unemployed more of them may want to use guns. ;-)
JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to DR. WHAT <=-
But you need to remember that the PURPOSE of most of those gun laws is
to harass legal gun owners. Criminals don't obey laws (hence, the
reason they are criminals), so passing a law doesn't impact a criminal
in any way.
Just one of those things that is common sense so lots of people refute
it.
Dumas Walker wrote to MOONDOG <=-
Yes, but apparently it is easier for legislature critters to pass new
laws rather than determine whether or not some law they already passed actually works. :(
Re: Re: Breaking News
By: Moondog to Weatherman on Sun Aug 22 2021 12:40 pm
The other day I heard there were over 20,000 gun laws at the state level. Instead fo creating new laws, I would advise they look at the exsiting la that are not working towards making people safe rather than create new la that hurt legal gun owners. The Second exists as part of our given right
Politicians meassure their productivity by number of enacted laws. That is h they justify their existence to both their peer and their electors. "So far have passed this and that and that other law. We are working hard. Now we ar passing yet another."
This is why the number of laws is always increasing and never decreasing.
I suspect it is also an attempt at artificially inflating the economy. If yo have too many people on unemployment you may create a lot of laws that generate the need for extra accounting in firms and families, so they need t hire more accountants and lawyers.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Moondog wrote to Weatherman <=-
The other day I heard there were over 20,000 gun laws at the state level. Instead fo creating new laws, I would advise they look at the exsiting laws that are not working towards making people safe rather than create new laws that hurt legal gun owners.
But you need to remember that the PURPOSE of most of those gun laws is to harass legal gun owners. Criminals don't obey laws (hence, the reason they criminals), so passing a law doesn't impact a criminal in any way.
... I was on a roll, till I slipped on the butter.
Re: Re: Breaking News
By: Arelor to Moondog on Mon Aug 23 2021 03:59 am
This is why the number of laws is always increasing and never decreasin
I suspect it is also an attempt at artificially inflating the economy. have too many people on unemployment you may create a lot of laws that generate the need for extra accounting in firms and families, so they n hire more accountants and lawyers.
If too many people are unemployed more of them may want to use guns. ;-)
|07 HusTler
Havens BBS
havens.synchro.net
The other day I heard there were over 20,000 gun laws at the state level. Instead fo creating new laws, I would advise they look at the exsiting law that are not working towards making people safe rather than create new law that hurt legal gun owners.
Yes, but apparently it is easier for legislature critters to pass new laws rather than determine whether or not some law they already passed actually works. :(
The Second exists as part of our given right to
defend ourselves, and that's where it hurts me to hear folks who only beli it was there because the founding fathers liked shooting squirrels or punching holes in targets.
Just because someone points out hunting doesn't mean that is the only
reason they believe in 2A. Jumping on them for mention hunting is just as short-sighted as those who think 2A is out-dated.
* SLMR 2.1a * A part of the 57% that -didn't- vote for Clinton. Twice.
To be clear, I don't jump on the hunting crowd. The few I do debate with are those who do not believe there's any other reason why someone should own firearms. I remind them the last time the US considered strict legislation toward everything except a few simple hunting rifles and shotguns, they were following the success the Germans were having in the 1930's. When registration become confiscation, a single shot goose gun is just as menacing to the eyes of an oppressor.
To be clear, I don't jump on the hunting crowd. The few I do debate with those who do not believe there's any other reason why someone should own firearms. I remind them the last time the US considered strict legislatio toward everything except a few simple hunting rifles and shotguns, they we following the success the Germans were having in the 1930's. When registration become confiscation, a single shot goose gun is just as menac to the eyes of an oppressor.
All of that is true. IIRC, the Brits cannot own much that isn't considered a hunting arm. When I hear someone who is not 2A going on about how we shouldn't have guns that carry X or more bullets, I think of the Brits and believe I would rather have what we have than that.
Once upon a time I might have trusted our government to leave us alone if all we had were hunting rifles but that time has passed.
* SLMR 2.1a * Tweety of Borg: I tawt I attimilated a Puddy Tat!
All of that is true. IIRC, the Brits cannot own much that isn't considered a hunting arm. When I hear someone who is not 2A going on about how we shouldn't have guns that carry X or more bullets, I think of the Brits and believe I would rather have what we have than that.
In the grand scheme of things the difference between a hunting rifle
and an assault rifle is the not in the firearm itself, but the
intentions of the person aiming and pulling the trigger.
All of that is true. IIRC, the Brits cannot own much that isn't consider a hunting arm. When I hear someone who is not 2A going on about how we shouldn't have guns that carry X or more bullets, I think of the Brits an believe I would rather have what we have than that.
In the grand scheme of things the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle is the not in the firearm itself, but the intentions of the person aiming and pulling the trigger.
Indeed. As you may have heard, lacking a gun, someone went on a stabbing rampage in NZ. They are now apparently looking into banning the sale of assault knives.
... DalekDOS v(overflow): (I)Obey (V)ision impaired (E)xterminate
Re: Re: Breaking News
Wait until they bring forth a ban against assault stones. Completely differe from stone stones.
I am sure criminals are scared because they have not started about banning assault sticks yet.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Re: Re: Breaking News
By: Arelor to Dumas Walker on Fri Sep 17 2021 06:03 pm
Re: Re: Breaking News
Wait until they bring forth a ban against assault stones. Completely differe from stone stone
I am sure criminals are scared because they have not started about banning assault sticks yet
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
I don't know what it would take to eliminate the roots of violent behavior, however I feel
eventually we can teach others that blaming knives, sticks or other items for the acts committed
the person using them is ridiculous. Some of the most effective martial arts based on unarmed
fighting originated because knives and other items were banned.
Wait until they bring forth a ban against assault stones. Completely different
from stone stones.
I am sure criminals are scared because they have not started about banning assault sticks yet.
Re: Re: Breaking News
There is a film in which some authoritarian regime tries to elimitate violen and mind control techniques. Most of the population dies and the rest turns who start killing everybody.
My experience is that you never convince people. The way to push change in t is to bring people into minoritary hobbies (such as target shooting or knife there is enough people in it, with stakes in it, that it becomes resistent t
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
I don't know what it would take to eliminate the roots of violent
behavior,
I don't know what it would take to eliminate the roots of violent behavior,
Personal responsibility.
Re: Breaking News
By: Jazzy J to Moondog on Sat Dec 11 2021 10:02:00
I don't know what it would take to eliminate the roots of violent behavior,
Personal responsibility.
Encouraging biblical morality would be a good place to start.
SYS64738
Encouraging biblical morality would be a good place to start.
Sounds good, but even most of us who follow the same book do not agree what each page says.
SYS64738 wrote to MOONDOG <=-
Re: Breaking News
By: Moondog to Sys64738 on Tue Dec 14 2021 15:56:00
Encouraging biblical morality would be a good place to start.
Sounds good, but even most of us who follow the same book do not agree what each page says.
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of
respect, kindness, and responsibility.
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect, kindness, and responsibility.
Put God above all, and treat your neighbor as yourself. The rest is
just details. :-)
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect, kindness, and responsibility.
Re: Breaking News
By: Sys64738 to Moondog on Wed Dec 15 2021 08:03:00
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect kindness, and responsibility.
But why do those have to be inspired by religion? Respect, Kindness and responsibility are all admirable traits. I don't need a fairy tale to back t up.
Eric
K7ELH wrote to SYS64738 <=-
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect, kindness, and responsibility.
But why do those have to be inspired by religion? Respect, Kindness
and responsibility are all admirable traits. I don't need a fairy tale
to back them up.
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect, kindness, and responsibility.
But why do those have to be inspired by religion? Respect, Kindness and responsibility are all admirable traits. I don't need a fairy tale to back them up.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 991 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 119:06:45 |
| Calls: | 12,958 |
| Files: | 186,574 |
| Messages: | 3,265,631 |