(April 23, 2017 at 3:21 pm)It_Was_me Wrote: I have come across these video on YouTube of these so called "second amendment" acitivists carrying their AR-15's into public places like a Walmart, Starbucks or any other sort of private business. They seem more in the business of getting reactions from people. I just do not understand why they do this? Sure, the legal BAC is less than .08 but that does not mean it would be OK for me to be driving with a BAC of .0799999999999 

Also, there has been studies that the entire good guy with a gun thing is a huge myth. They found the majority of the time this good guy with the gun will either freeze, or get mistaken by as the perpetrator by the police.

I have zero problem with owning guns. But there is such a thing as taking something too far, and this is it. 


Also, one other thing. I would like to see someone who is middle eastern looking do this same exact thing. I guarantee you these open carry idiots would be calling them a terrorist. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naTSklJmB2o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzw8jW0aCys

It goes much further than that, pretty much banning the ownership and usage of firearms and other weapons except inasmuch they are needed as a member of a state sanctioned and run militia.

In effect the second amemdment restricts guns to the army an other groups the goverment deems it necessary to have to protect the state. It's just that there's been a run of shit for brains Republitraitor idiots in the Supreme court for a while who think the best way to honour the framer's intentions is to twist their words out of all recognition.

(April 23, 2017 at 3:56 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 3:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The problem with the 2nd amendment is it's not very specific.

The amendment says that Americans have a right to "keep and bear arms" and that's about it. "arms" can cover almost any weapon imaginable.

The phrase "well related militia" is also not well defined either, especially in the context of the amendment. Its used as a reason for why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it doesn't state that all people who keep and bear arms need to belong to a well regulated militia either.

In short, it wasn't specific enough when it was written, and although I agree with the sentiment expressed in the amendment, it needs some more definition from court rulings.

Where in the second amendment does it say we have the right to keep and bear arms? It says the government has no right to impinge on that right.

... which implies we have the right to keep and bear arms.

(April 23, 2017 at 4:19 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 3:56 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Where in the second amendment does it say we have the right to keep and bear arms? It says the government has no right to impinge on that right.

... which implies we have the right to keep and bear arms.

True , but that right is not granted by the second amendment. It was considered a natural right. That is why the first ten amendments put restrictions on the federal government. If we want to argue that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any weapon of choice it seems to me an updating of the constitution is in order.

(April 23, 2017 at 3:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The problem with the 2nd amendment is it's not very specific.

The amendment says that Americans have a right to "keep and bear arms" and that's about it. "arms" can cover almost any weapon imaginable.

The phrase "well related militia" is also not well defined either, especially in the context of the amendment. Its used as a reason for why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it doesn't state that all people who keep and bear arms need to belong to a well regulated militia either.

In short, it wasn't specific enough when it was written, and although I agree with the sentiment expressed in the amendment, it needs some more definition from court rulings.

They meant "long guns", for protection from English and Indians. This is in the record from the times. The militia was to use those guns back when it took days to get regular troops to a problem area. "Well regulated" meant drilled regularly so they would know which end of the gun to point at the bad guys. This is all in the historical record for those who will look.

An individual in the US has to have one of these to legally own a machine gun.



In order to get a similar stamp an individual has to submit an application to the ATF along with a photograph, finger prints, a form signed by local law enforcement approving the individual to own a machine gun, and pay the $200 tax for the stamp. The process takes months and either the local law enforcement or the ATF can deny the application if they think the individual shouldn't be allowed to own a machine gun.

As far as Walmart or any other business goes they can if they choose ban carrying firearms in their store or other facilities by simply posting a sign by the doors.



Many businesses such as Walmart don't post these signs because they don't want to loose the business of the people that carry guns. If other people don't want to shop in stores that allow guns they can choose to take their business elsewhere, or they could organize boycotts and/or contact their state representatives and tell them they don't approve of the policies and regulations that allow such things. The former is why Walmart doesn't have the signs. The later is how the people with guns got their guns into most of these places in the first place.

(April 23, 2017 at 4:38 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 4:19 pm)Tiberius Wrote: ... which implies we have the right to keep and bear arms.

True , but that right is not granted by the second amendment. It was considered a natural right. That is why the first ten amendments put restrictions on the federal government. If we want to argue that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any weapon of choice it seems to me an updating of the constitution is in order.

The right is not only implicit in 2A, the 9th and 10th amendments reserve unenumerated rights to citizen and the states.

It's pretty simple. American jurisprudence has recognized that such a right, with limitations, exists.

(April 23, 2017 at 4:10 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 3:21 pm)It_Was_me Wrote: I have come across these video on YouTube of these so called "second amendment" acitivists carrying their AR-15's into public places like a Walmart, Starbucks or any other sort of private business. They seem more in the business of getting reactions from people. I just do not understand why they do this? Sure, the legal BAC is less than .08 but that does not mean it would be OK for me to be driving with a BAC of .0799999999999 

Also, there has been studies that the entire good guy with a gun thing is a huge myth. They found the majority of the time this good guy with the gun will either freeze, or get mistaken by as the perpetrator by the police.

I have zero problem with owning guns. But there is such a thing as taking something too far, and this is it. 


Also, one other thing. I would like to see someone who is middle eastern looking do this same exact thing. I guarantee you these open carry idiots would be calling them a terrorist. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naTSklJmB2o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzw8jW0aCys

It goes much further than that, pretty much banning the ownership and usage of firearms and other weapons except inasmuch they are needed as a member of a state sanctioned and run militia.

In effect the second amemdment restricts guns to the army an other groups the goverment deems it necessary to have to protect the state. It's just that there's been a run of shit for brains Republitraitor idiots in the Supreme court for a while who think the best way to honour the framer's intentions is to twist their words out of all recognition.

Yeah and we can thank Reagan and Orrin Hatch as well.

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk

(April 23, 2017 at 8:34 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 4:38 pm)chimp3 Wrote: True , but that right is not granted by the second amendment. It was considered a natural right. That is why the first ten amendments put restrictions on the federal government. If we want to argue that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any weapon of choice it seems to me an updating of the constitution is in order.

The right is not only implicit in 2A, the 9th and 10th amendments reserve unenumerated rights to citizen and the states.

It's pretty simple. American jurisprudence has recognized that such a right, with limitations, exists.

I agree.  American jurisprudence has recognized the need for refinements of our legal right to bear arms.  I take exception to people who try to interpret the second amendment as limiting our right to own machine guns. The second amendment in its original intent is archaic in addressing school shootings and obese dumb asses ordering burgers at McD's. Thomas Jefferson proposed a health regimen that involved taking rigorous walks while carrying a rifle. Jefferson was not foreseeing people waiting in line at the gym to use the treadmills.
Primary in all of this is the original intent that tyrants such as Trump would not feel safe trying to dominate an armed populace. Primary in all of this is that the Black Panthers did not have the right to bear arms openly in the sixties in California.
 I am not a member of the NRA. Tantamount in all of this is whether we have the right to defend ourselves against tyrants.

(April 23, 2017 at 8:34 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 4:38 pm)chimp3 Wrote: True , but that right is not granted by the second amendment. It was considered a natural right. That is why the first ten amendments put restrictions on the federal government. If we want to argue that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any weapon of choice it seems to me an updating of the constitution is in order.

The right is not only implicit in 2A, the 9th and 10th amendments reserve unenumerated rights to citizen and the states.

It's pretty simple. American jurisprudence has recognized that such a right, with limitations, exists.

And they revised the Constitution to do it.

---

(April 23, 2017 at 9:03 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 8:34 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The right is not only implicit in 2A, the 9th and 10th amendments reserve unenumerated rights to citizen and the states.

It's pretty simple. American jurisprudence has recognized that such a right, with limitations, exists.

I agree.  American jurisprudence has recognized the need for refinements of our legal right to bear arms.  I take exception to people who try to interpret the second amendment as limiting our right to own machine guns. The second amendment in its original intent is archaic in addressing school shootings and obese dumb asses ordering burgers at McD's. Thomas Jefferson proposed a health regimen that involved taking rigorous walks while carrying a rifle. Jefferson was not foreseeing people waiting in line at the gym to use the treadmills.
Primary in all of this is the original intent that tyrants such as Trump would not feel safe trying to dominate an armed populace. Primary in all of this is that the Black Panthers did not have the right to bear arms openly in the sixties in California.
 I am not a member of the NRA. Tantamount in all of this is whether we have the right to defend ourselves against tyrants.

Guess what, you're not going to do that with an AR-15.

(April 23, 2017 at 9:36 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Guess what, you're not going to do that with an AR-15.

Bump fire? It's so impractical but when you do it right, soooooooooo fun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire