Monday June 27, 2016
Jump to content
I heard this on the news this morning. Seems the newly improved (widened) Panama Canal just (re)opened. First ship thru?? You got it. A big new super-carrier from China! Holding all sorts of new and improved "containers". I tend to wonder what's in all those "containers".
I bet one thing for sure. I bet you can count on at least some unnecessary plastic objects being aboard ship. Headed for your local wal-mart, no doubt.
I'll bet it might even contain some of those plastic shot glasses shaped like revolvers with the City of Payson logo on the side I saw recently. Bet the tourists just buy those in scores. Good PR for Payson, too!
:-) Grinding that axe again eh Tom? Here's a tip. Stay out of wal-mart......... you'll have much less chance of ending up with a chinese made object.
I like to amuse folks sometimes.
So, once I accompanied my wife into the Dollar store (next to Basha's?) as she was picking up some throw away picnic items. As we approached the check-out line, I turned my ballcap backwards, slanted it some, stuck my glasses in the neckline of my T-shirt, and started grinning maniacally at the check-out lady. Sure enough, eventually she made eye contact and asked me a question. I proceeded to tell her how happy I become when I get to a store like hers because I just love buying unnecessary plastic objects. She seemed puzzled until I explained to her all about American exceptionalism and how I was naturally smarter because I was an American and it was my god-given right to love plastic objects. Then I left.
"Arms," as you mean it, is usually defined as, "A weapon, especially a firearm."
It isn't what I mean that matters. It's what they (the "authors" of the word) meant that matters.
I was just trying to find a method of legally (constitutionally) denying me (or you or Don, etc) from possessing a high capacity quick reload "assault rifle" without messing with the Constitution. Just as we successfully did with machine guns and hand grenades.
As you all point out........ you can't spin "...shall not be infringed".
That part of the Law is untouchable IMO.
BUT, what is an arm in the framers intent?
Obviously, somehow we managed to "declare" that machine guns and hand grenades do NOT fall under "arms" under the constitution or I could go buy one.
The word "arms" does NOT appear untouchable. by precedent!
This area (of verbiage) allows compromise. Could they not have "meant" a "sidearm" when they chose to pen "arms"? Sidearms are commonly rifles, shotguns, pistols. You make the point that armament is a completely different term. Good, I guess. That means I don't have a "right" to armaments. I'm not sure how that helps here when we're focusing on their choice of the term "arms". Why? Why arms? Why not define high capacity quick reload "assault rifles" in the same manner that we do machine guns and hand grenades? Outside the definition of "arms" as used within the 2nd amendment. You want me to be able to go buy an AK - 47? For what purpose? Game doesn't fire back at me.
Do you think the 2nd Amendment gives you the "right" to possess a high capacity, quick reload "assault rifle" complete with 30 round ammo "clip"?
Simple question. Could a state pass a law that would stand a constitutional challenge essentially banning you (or me) from owning that specific type of weapon?
lol. I won't answer that Tom.
But, I know how long he'd last if he'd of tried it on a stagecoach.
The answer is:
As long as it took the environment to consume him as he'd have been "not-so-politlely" escorted off the stagecoach. Buzzard bait to put it a bit more succinctly.
IF I understand you correctly, (You may recall I knew your position already on the 1st couple questions)----you are stating that the "Framers" understood that weaponry would greatly improve, (become more deadly) and specifically used the word "arms" with the intent to ban nothing. Correct?
I believe that is your position and (technically)-by extension- you and I have the right to anything we can get a-hold of........including a nuclear device. Please correct me if I have misstated your position.
I have one single, simple question. "Arms" is short for armaments. A common word in the 18th century. Why didn't they use the word "armaments"? They knew the importance of language in law. Why did they CHOOSE to shorten it to "arms"?
You can't (by yourself) carry a cannon. Are you saying that you don't believe the "framers" intended to reserve any "armaments" for military usage only?
Pretty dumb guys...............
Can't fix stupid Tom. Nor understand it sometimes.
Do you believe the "framers" contemplated "bombs" and "Grenades" (and other exploding mass destruction devices) when they chose the term "arms", and if so, do you think they intended to allow the average citizen to possess them?
Same question with machine guns? (I have been too lazy to include the history on the establishment of the LAW banning machine guns. I believe it occurred early in the twentieth century--like early 1930's, late twenties???.......anyone who wishes to provide us with that detail, PLEASE feel free!) Should I be allowed (did the FRAMERS contemplate and approve?) a machine gun?? I remind us, I'm not allowed one (legally) now!
Many of the MOST conservative among us citizens when it comes to deciphering the true LAW from the words within the Constitution want it read VERY literally when possible. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask you specifically..........
Did the Framers contemplate and approve (in 1793?) my "right" to a high capacity, quick reload "assault rifle" (commonly referred to as Military Assault Rifles) such as the AK-47 or the other types available like the weapon used in Orlando recently?
Root question! What weapons did they mean to include within their choice of the word "arms"??
To answer that one must begin by asking 2 other questions.
That's a start.
Anyone want to try and build on that, feel free.
But, I want to know your answers to those few (most basic) questions I pose above.
Let's try to keep this debate meaningful and devoid of silly insults and name calling.
I'm a liberal with guns. So what, deal with it! Of course, my definition of liberal likely ain't your'n!
Keep practicing. Someday, marksmanship may be vital!
I hesitate to weigh in on this with an attempt at some logic in search of acceptable compromise as to so many ANY compromise is flat evil. But, understanding that our Republic was established on compromise, I'll give one tiny go at it.
Most when talking about the 2nd Amendment on us peons "right" to carry guns tend to focus on the definition of the word "militia" in searching for answers or trying to justify their opinions.
I must preface by saying that I own guns. Several of them. Rifles, Shotguns, a Handgun.
I would NOT surrender them and would use the 2nd amendment to defend my right to possess them. However, I think we focus on the wrong word in the amendment. The LAW uses the word "arms"....... it says (last I knew) "... the people's right to bear arms..."
We should be looking at what "arms" means, and MEANT to the founders/authors of the language used! Somewhere along the line, out Gov't managed to prohibit us peons from having "rights" to pack "Tommy Guns" and other machine guns. Under law. Nobody (nowadays anyways) complains. it was done WITHOUT removing the 2nd Amendment OR confiscating my firearms. *there's that word again!)
Also, I don't hear many contending that I should be allowed to pack around bombs, grenades, bazookas, surface to air missiles, or a small portable nuclear device.
Apparently, most of us don't think they fall under the "arms" category.
Personally, I'm not sure it's what we think that's the MOST important. It's what the authors of the language meant that I think is most important. The central question is:
What did they (the framers of our governing LAW) MEAN when they chose and penned the term "arms"??
That's what I think we have to focus on IF we are ever able to find any acceptable compromise to the issue of guns and mass shootings by crazy (or worse) humans.
You needn't worry about that big bad Mexican Lobo shooting you, or knifing you, or even eating you. (You don't taste good to them) The risk of violence for you comes on TWO legs!
In the next post, to build on this gun point, I have just a few questions for us all to answer. Honestly! If you have the cajones to do so.
Last login: Thursday, June 16, 2016