Guns, Guns Guns

[Sarcasm] I thought that the second amendment actually promoted animal cruelty, especially the hunting of Grizzlies.
After all, it does say that the people have the right to bear arms![/sarcasm]

Odium wrote:
My apologies. I actually wrote that post before you posted yours, and HB's sheeple comment felt ignorant and arrogant enough to deserve a response, but when I came back to the forums to post I saw your response to him and it felt hypocritical to call him out on his comment when the post above mine was basically one long insult directed at him. Far as the enjoying HBs posts, I was more referring to other sections of the forums where things don't get near as heated as they do in the Politics forum. As far as the Troll comment, I'm sorry, but your comment before mine looked more like what I see in Facebook political "discussions" than what I expected to see on the Weber forums (I've been reading the forums for a few years, but only started checking out the Politics section a few weeks ago). I really should have just ignored both your posts rather than saying anything, and for that you both have my apologies

Don´t worry about it.

Daryl wrote:Good point, John Ringo calls them Barbie Guns.

Daryl wrote:As to accuracy I was regularly getting 7/10 kill zone shots on human shaped targets at 500 metres with the little bull pup.

Problem with the 5.56 is that once it´s velocity drops enough, which is somewhere between 150 and 300m depending on conditions and length of barrel, the characteristics that makes the bullet effective more or less disappears and only CNS and similar hits are deadly.

And, due to bullet instability when firing, hitting anything at less than 30-50m can actually be as ineffective or even worse as if it was beyond 300m.

At optimal range and usage, it works reasonably fine, but in total it´s a bloody stupid ammo.

Really annoyed that my country went with the trend and replaced 7.62 with 5.56, as while the 7.62x51 may not be great, it´s still way superior.

It´s kinda strange that older ammo´s, like Swedish 6.5 or 8mm, or more than century old Arisaka 6.5mm, the more recent British 7x40 among others would have been MUCH better choices for modern ammo, yet instead we first end up with the 7.62 and then with the complete and utter dud that 5.56 is.

Daryl wrote:As an aside we had some fun and my 30.06 with black tip rounds, well lets say don't depend on a vest to even start to protect you.

Ah, no worries, i´m more of a stealth guy. While i was involved in paintball matches i made it my modus operandi to sneak up and tap people on the shoulder before shooting them.

pokermind wrote:Interesting Facebook MEME on the gun debate, Those not in the Continental US will have to sen your letter by square rigged sailing ship before the horseman can start from the port



Poker

Only problem with it is that it´s a total red herring and non sequiteur, because that´s not an argument anyone serious uses anyway.

2nd amendment as written is about what is supposed to exist instead of a military.
And if you read it without trying to make it say what you want to say, it is rather obvious.

The only way to make it mean what the gunlobby says it does is by cutting out the rest of the 2nd amendment. And that´s kinda the opposite of "protecting the constitution".

Tenshinai wrote:serious uses anyway.

2nd amendment as written is about what is supposed to exist instead of a military.
And if you read it without trying to make it say what you want to say, it is rather obvious.

The only way to make it mean what the gunlobby says it does is by cutting out the rest of the 2nd amendment. And that´s kinda the opposite of "protecting the constitution".

Oh the irony, someone complaining about other people interpreting the 2nd amemndment to suit their own argument while simaltaniously interpreting it to suit their own agenda. The 2nd amendment states:

"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"

If their intent was for the Federal Government to be unable to restrict the "State Militias" then they would have said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Did they say that? - NO
Did they not know the word "State"? - NOit's right there in the previous line.
Are you claiming they were too stupid to know the difference between "people" and "State"?
The purpose was to restrict the Federal Government from passing laws preventing the

PEOPLE

from arming themselves against the formation of a tyrannical government. Civil issues such as "gun control", "repeat criminals having guns" uhm... etc... are the purview of the state and local governments, not the Federal Government.

It might also be quite possible that the founding fathers when they wrote the word "STATE", it was NOT the word state meaning a state of the union like Virginia, but the word state meaning a free state of being. A situation. An environment if you wish.

Not a state in the union. After all, how can a state in the union be "free"? How can any government, local, county, or state be "free"? The founding fathers may have been talking about a free state of being of the individual. The people. Just a thought.

There is also the chance the founding fathers also may have meant a free state meaning the actual state government, like the aforementioned state of Virginia. But then consider that for us in the USA, all government is made up of the people. So it still may mean several things. Thus the second clause of the amendment?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not even that much about the absolute right of self protection. It has everything to do with the ability of the armed population to overcome and overturn a tyrannical government. Difficult for some to understand. Original intent. Carved with ink into parchment.

Some would say the US Constitution is a living document. Bull Shit. It means what it says using common written English understood at the time. Over 228 years ago. What is dangerous today is that some politicians make up their own interpretations. They are deathly AFRAID of the armed population. Good indeed.

HB of CJ wrote:Some would say the US Constitution is a living document. Bull Shit. It means what it says using common written English understood at the time. Over 228 years ago. What is dangerous today is that some politicians make up their own interpretations. They are deathly AFRAID of the armed population. Good indeed.

The US Constitution, like any code of laws in any society, must be a living document. It can and has to be changed to account for the ways in which society and our idea of what is acceptable in it evolves over time. The 14th, 15th and 19th amendments are expressions of this, as are the 18th and 22nd. Even the first through tenth amendments, as important as they are, must be subject to continual reevaluation. Without that, they turn into religious dogma, defended not because they are good and necessary things to have but defended because it has always been like this.

So, you may be annoyed at those stupid liberals for continually questioning the second amendment. But without that, without people asking whether or not something is still acceptable, you would still be considering negroes to be a lesser race which should not be allowed full citizenship rights.

I do think that The E has pointed out an important core difference between US conservatives versus US liberals and citizens of other states.
Each to their own, and please I am not talking about relative values of philosophies or trying to belittle anyone.
The US conservative really believes some documents are immutable and sacrosanct, whereas the rest of us don't.

We see a constitution as a living document that needs to be constantly reinterpreted as technology and society develops. The US conservatives see their constitution as being as relevant in every detail now as it was over 200 years ago.

The same principle applies to the bible. We (liberals and pesky outsiders) see it in many ways, but a significant proportion see it as the collected wisdom of a patriarchal agrarian society as they saw things from two to five thousand years ago. Lots of good stuff, love thy neighbour and thou shall not kill, but also lots that isn't relevant today like stoning adulterous women (enough stones in Hollywood?). US conservatives even use the term "that's gospel" to indicate absolute immutable truths, and believe that the Bible is the most solid unchangeable document of all.

I know I said I wouldn't stir, but can't help asking how the "Thou shall not kill" ethos sits with "You have a right to any weapon designed specifically to kill humans"?

A better translation is thou shall not murder. Self defense has never been murder.

Which illustrates how a silly the living document argument is. The words in a document mean something specific when they are written. Interpreting an ever changing set of meanings into a document renders it meaningless. Worse, if the document captures a social contract as our Constitution does, re-interpreting that meaning changes the terms of the contract. There are already provisions to change the Constitution. Use those mechanisms without being lazy and simply asserting variable meanings to the constant set of words.

Daryl wrote:I do think that The E has pointed out an important core difference between US conservatives versus US liberals and citizens of other states.
Each to their own, and please I am not talking about relative values of philosophies or trying to belittle anyone.
The US conservative really believes some documents are immutable and sacrosanct, whereas the rest of us don't.

We see a constitution as a living document that needs to be constantly reinterpreted as technology and society develops. The US conservatives see their constitution as being as relevant in every detail now as it was over 200 years ago.

The same principle applies to the bible. We (liberals and pesky outsiders) see it in many ways, but a significant proportion see it as the collected wisdom of a patriarchal agrarian society as they saw things from two to five thousand years ago. Lots of good stuff, love thy neighbour and thou shall not kill, but also lots that isn't relevant today like stoning adulterous women (enough stones in Hollywood?). US conservatives even use the term "that's gospel" to indicate absolute immutable truths, and believe that the Bible is the most solid unchangeable document of all.

I know I said I wouldn't stir, but can't help asking how the "Thou shall not kill" ethos sits with "You have a right to any weapon designed specifically to kill humans"?

Absolutely! By all means re-evaluate. However, until the Amendments are repealed by a legally accepted mechanism, their meanings are NOT subject to revision. Which is what those that assert it is a living document believe is proper.

Legal interpretation is a matter of applying that constant meaning to novel situations. It is not a matter applying different meanings altogether to routine situations because someone deems to words to hold different meanings than when they were written.

The E wrote:

HB of CJ wrote:Some would say the US Constitution is a living document. Bull Shit. It means what it says using common written English understood at the time. Over 228 years ago. What is dangerous today is that some politicians make up their own interpretations. They are deathly AFRAID of the armed population. Good indeed.

The US Constitution, like any code of laws in any society, must be a living document. It can and has to be changed to account for the ways in which society and our idea of what is acceptable in it evolves over time. The 14th, 15th and 19th amendments are expressions of this, as are the 18th and 22nd. Even the first through tenth amendments, as important as they are, must be subject to continual reevaluation. Without that, they turn into religious dogma, defended not because they are good and necessary things to have but defended because it has always been like this.

So, you may be annoyed at those stupid liberals for continually questioning the second amendment. But without that, without people asking whether or not something is still acceptable, you would still be considering negroes to be a lesser race which should not be allowed full citizenship rights.