The Congressman is back yo

[HeloDude]

57 minutes ago, Homestar said:

I come from a gun family, though we were just casual target shooters with dad. Sandy Hook made me change a lot of what I think about the availability of guns generally. I find myself more in line with the left on guns now. But I recognize guns are the law of the land and I don’t have the votes to change it. 

A Sandy Hook could have could have happened before 2012…and there were plenty of shootings before then as well, but yet you didn’t change your mind until after 2012?  Also how did the availability of guns change in the recent years before Sandy Hook?  Just curious how that all made you change your mind unless it was your emotions that caused you to form a different opinion.

[FourFans]

Just gunna throw some words out that are rarely included:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." (emphasis added)

I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin

[HeloDude]

43 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

Just gunna throw some words out that are rarely included:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." (emphasis added)

I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin

I’ll give you a chance to fix/edit your post…what exactly do you think “well regulated” meant in the late 1700s?  I’ll give you a hint:  A clock that was in good working order was seen as “well regulated”.

Edited January 9, 2023 by HeloDude

[FourFans]

  

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

I’ll give you a chance to fix/edit your post…what exactly do you think “well regulated” meant in the late 1700s?  I’ll give you a hint:  A clock that was in good working order was seen as “well regulated”.

That's cool.  I'm not fixing or editing anything, but thanks for the threat.  You gunna jump through the internet and choke me if I don't censer my words?  Here I though helo guys had thick skin...

Glad to know you were there in the 1700s, that must have been cool.  By the way, they routinely drilled with their weapons, fully understood the concept of military hierarchy, came to duty when called, and were infinitely more disciplined (when needed) than we are today.  They were also basically farmers with pitchforks...and cannons...yes, CANNONS.  Imagine Jim-bob in Kansas having a fully operational 155 howitzer hanging out in his barn.  Historically, that's actually a pretty close technological equivalent.  What's more, they built many of their own weapons and their own ammunition.  They also drank.  A LOT.  Don't go cherry picking comparisons.  Full context is key.

I feel confident in my assumption that the authors used "well regulated" intentionally because it could grown, expand, or contract as required with time and social requirement as needed.  They understood that having some constantly drunk dude rolling up with his arsenal was not helpful to the fight.  Discipline then, as it is now, was highly important.  No doubt, they had their well armed "a Florida man" who did what he wanted, and the framers intentionally didn't want to empower that asshat.

My point is not that the government or some other central agency should regulate our militia capable citizens.  Rather, that our citizens should adhere to a high standard if they intend to own weapons.  Modern day suburban Karen, who owns a baby Kimber .45 that she carries with one in the chamber at the bottom of her purse while she never practices, maintains, or even fires it, and still shouts about her second amendment rights, is being violently arrogant.  A right is a responsibility, not an entitlement.  Too many 2nd amendment thumpers forget that there is a first framing portion in that amendment's text, and they tend give responsible gun owners a bad name.

We the people are supposed to be disciplined, regulated, responsible, and good stewards of the rights and freedoms purchased with blood that we didn't have to spill.  Cherry picking rights and omitting framing text in the guidance passed by our forefathers is rather childish.  If you're going to pick up a weapon and claim it as an American Right...which it is...you must pick up the responsibility that goes along with it. 

A 'well regulated militia" implies going way beyond defending my personally property, and asserts that that I am willing to subordinate myself and my armed capacity into a military structure for the purpose of defending my state or country.  Sadly, that's taking critical thinking and analysis of our constitution WAY farther than most drunk airline pilots are willing to intellectually go.  More unfortunately, educating people into being responsible is damn near impossible, but I'll keep trying.

Out of curiosity, how would you have me edit my statement?  All I did was quote the a constitutional amendment.  What triggered you?

So we're clear, here's the full text of the second amendment:

"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."

 

For the millennials: TLDR - If you own a gun, you're supposed to be responsible and proficient with it.  It's not just for defending yourself or your own interests, it's for defeating tyranny and defending your country if so needed.  Many abuse that right and it pisses me off.  Governments should be afraid of, and work for, their people, not the other way around.

Edited January 9, 2023 by FourFans130

[HeloDude]

52 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

Out of curiosity, how would you have me edit my statement?  All I did was quote the a constitutional amendment.  Did that trigger you?

Nah not triggered, just initially disappointed, and it wasn't a threat—wonder why you would suggest that it was?  As for “just quoting the Constitution”…if you say so.  Funny, it’s the same partial quote that those who want to erode gun rights use.  I guess I assumed you were doing the same, my honest apology.

As far as the high standard people should have when owning, carrying, using firearms…totally agree.  I expect that everyone should have a high standard in everything they do in life.  But if Karen wants to have a loaded pistol in her purse with “one in chamber” (I don’t know why anyone would carry a firearm for self defense without one in the chamber?), then that’s her right.  If she uses her firearm inappropriately/to cause problems, then she can answer for it.  But until then, carrying a firearm is still her right and it shouldn’t never be reduced or taken away.

But back to Kinzinger…he’s a politician.  He said what he had to say to get elected and now he’ll say what he has to say to stay relevant.  Justin Amash can’t stand Trump either (he voted to impeach him the first time), but I believe he’s more so of an honest type politician (compared to most) as he still stands for what he has stood for in the past.

[Vetter]

2 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

Governments should be afraid of, and work for, their people, not the other way around.

Agreed.  Jan 6th showed that the .gov is indeed scared of the people.  And the only guns fired in anger that day were by the government.

And Adam Kinzinger donated to the pig who murdered Babbitt.  There’s a special place in hell for his breed.

[Mark1]

1 hour ago, Vetter said:

Agreed.  Jan 6th showed that the .gov is indeed scared of the people.  And the only guns fired in anger that day were by the government.

Solid point.  The crowd was dovish and peaceful and .gov were the extremists that day.  Oh, but one question.  Are we considering the bombs in this calculus, or just the guns?  I mean, yeah, they were too stupid to set an egg timer properly (not surprising given the demographic), but does that mean we put it on the scoreboard as a zero?  Not so sure.  Maybe we should rope in some other opinions on this one?

2 hours ago, Vetter said:

And Adam Kinzinger donated to the pig who murdered dropped that dumbass Babbitt who was afforded extreme leniency up until she crossed the last of several Fuck-Around-And-Find-Out thresholds and ended up LARPing herself to death.  Clean kill.

FTFY.  Seek help.

[Homestar]

6 hours ago, HeloDude said:

A Sandy Hook could have could have happened before 2012…and there were plenty of shootings before then as well, but yet you didn’t change your mind until after 2012?  Also how did the availability of guns change in the recent years before Sandy Hook?  Just curious how that all made you change your mind unless it was your emotions that caused you to form a different opinion.

There hasn't been one event that has changed my mind.  I've slowly changed perspectives over the past decade.

[Homestar]

4 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

By the way, they routinely drilled with their weapons, fully understood the concept of military hierarchy, came to duty when called, and were infinitely more disciplined (when needed) than we are today. 

I've watched some videos about gun ownership in Switzerland.  I think the U.S. could really learn a lot from them.  Of course a lot of that is based in mandatory military service for everyone, but gun ownership is seen as a tremendous responsibility.  Lots of people are simply reckless with firearms.

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, Vetter said:

And the only guns fired in anger that day were by the government.

Isn't it Texas where people get shot for trespassing?

[bfargin]

19 hours ago, Homestar said:

I believe his self-immolation in joining the Jan 6 committee demonstrates the opposite—extreme conviction. …………..

[HeloDude]

6 hours ago, Homestar said:

Isn't it Texas where people get shot for trespassing?

Isn’t in the US where the left gets really upset for police shooting unarmed people?  

Edited January 9, 2023 by HeloDude

[Lord Ratner]

22 hours ago, Homestar said:

I believe his self-immolation in joining the Jan 6 committee demonstrates the opposite—extreme conviction. 
 

Perhaps made easier by getting redistrict-ed. But I find myself more impressed by his and Cheny’s efforts to hold Trump accountable as more genuine than the cowards like McCarthy that blow wherever the winds of power take them. 
 

Flame away. 

You would understand conservatives better, and why they seem to support indefensible people, if you would consider more that it is about fairness than the actual positions.

 

Conservatives have now watched liberals jump all over the first instance of conservative rioting in modern American history, after openly cheering the wide scale destruction of several American cities, to include many federal institutions, during rioting that falsely portrayed America as racist. 

 

This is after liberals spent years defending Hillary Clinton, but suddenly could not abide the idea of a president enriching their family. Cute.

Or maybe the hilarity of going after Donald Trump for having classified documents in his basement (remember that scandal that went nowhere?), again after down playing Hillary's bathroom email server.

I remember when Jeb Bush's daughter was in the news for drug abuse, but don't you dare talk about Hunter Biden and his drug fueled, underage prostitute, illegal firearms, international money laundering schemes. He's not the president!

 

Conservatives are somehow silently condoning the rare-but-highly-covered school shootings by supporting the constitutional right to bear arms, yet if you bring up that thousands of black teens and young men are killed every year in gang violence, mostly in liberal strongholds, somehow that's... racist? Black lives matter indeed.

 

Or perhaps it was Alexandria Ocasio Cortez at the border in her white dress decrying the evil Republicans for... Barack Obama's chain link Mexican children cages. But when the border crisis explodes under their watch, you're just being xenophobic. And when Trump era immigration policies are reinstated, no no, it's different this time, this is a Democratic triumph. See, we defend the border!

https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg

 

People, like most other animals, will do irrational things when they feel they are being treated unfairly. It is the bedrock of our system, the entire basis for our founding, and inconveniently, detestable to most politicians and activists. At some point in my lifetime, Democrats (politicians, activists, and academics, not liberal voters) decided they would be explicit in their willingness to abandon fairness in pursuit of their societal goals. What we are seeing is the predictable response. 

 

[Vetter]

7 hours ago, Mark1 said:

Solid point.  The crowd was dovish and peaceful and .gov were the extremists that day.  Oh, but one question.  Are we considering the bombs in this calculus, or just the guns?  I mean, yeah, they were too stupid to set an egg timer properly (not surprising given the demographic), but does that mean we put it on the scoreboard as a zero?  Not so sure.  Maybe we should rope in some other opinions on this one?

FTFY.  Seek help.

You started so well.  The “bomb” you’re referencing is the pipe bomb that someone hid near the DNC?  The one the FBI, in a city with probably the most cameras per capita in the US, can’t seem to figure out who planted it.  Nah, smells like a Fed op…

Babbitt was out of line, sure.  But not “clean kill” out of line.  Especially with riot cops literally 10 feet behind her.  So I guess we’ll disagree on this point…

Seek help.  Is that like “do better”?

[brabus]

13 hours ago, HeloDude said:

A Sandy Hook could have could have happened before 2012

Many events far worse than Sandy Hook have happened in America for hundreds of years with firearms involved, at the hands of the US govt and military. Ooof, history is a real inconvenient thing for the anti-2A crowd. The problem is that crowd is generally very ignorant of history, emotional instead of logical, and for some reason has a completely baseless, yet steadfast, trust in the govt (see first problem listed).

11 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

For the millennials: TLDR - If you own a gun, you're supposed to be responsible and proficient with it.  It's not just for defending yourself or your own interests, it's for defeating tyranny and defending your country if so needed.  Many abuse that right and it pisses me off.  Governments should be afraid of, and work for, their people, not the other way around.

Completely agree, with the exception of your “many abuse” statement. No, I don’t believe many do, just the occasional dumbasses you remember more. Kind of like how your “average drive” in golf is 290 yds, but really it’s probably about 69; you’re just selectively remembering the ones that “stand out” and that’s what your perception is built upon subconsciously.

 

6 hours ago, Homestar said:

Lots of people are simply reckless with firearms.

Same comment as above. I know you can point to stories of jackasses with firearms, but it’s incredibly insignificant numbers. Less than 500 people die per year in the US due to accidental gun events. That number means nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we’re talking about constitutionally protected rights. 

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

Same comment as above. I know you can point to stories of jackasses with firearms, but it’s incredibly insignificant numbers. Less than 500 people die per year in the US due to accidental gun events. That number means nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we’re talking about constitutionally protected rights. 

But you ignored my statement about supporting the Switzerland model of gun ownership. I have no problem with gun ownership. But in America we have no incentive to make it safe.

[brabus]

3 hours ago, Homestar said:

in America we have no incentive to make it safe.

Well the facts refute your emotional claim. Plenty of incentive combined with exceptionally great training programs and safety culture handed down is why we have a microscopic amount of accidental gun deaths. You clearly know almost nothing about firearms, the industry, or the related laws (thousands of them by the way), while simultaneously painting half of America as idiots who are  reckless, don’t care about safety, etc…based on emotional conjecture and wildly inaccurate assumptions. Good work.

 

3 hours ago, Homestar said:

Switzerland model of gun ownership

You mean the one where the govt has to approve you to buy a firearm and you have to beg them to allow you to defend yourself with a firearm? Yeah, zero support from me on that bullshit. Go back to my previous post on history repeatedly demonstrating why 2A is critical to our country’s survival. 

[Smokin]

Remember that the Bill of Rights was written entirely by people who had won a revolution only six years ago.  Anyone that thinks 'well-regulated' equals ANY type of control by the federal government, is are ignorant of history.  Such a militia would have been fighting for the British, not for the Patriots in the American Revolution.  Zero chance that this is what the framers had in mind.

[Lawman]

Remember that the Bill of Rights was written entirely by people who had won a revolution only six years ago.  Anyone that thinks 'well-regulated' equals ANY type of control by the federal government, is are ignorant of history.  Such a militia would have been fighting for the British, not for the Patriots in the American Revolution.  Zero chance that this is what the framers had in mind.

I also love when idiots use “well regulated” in an argument for gun control not understanding the etymology of the phrase in its meaning.

“In good order and supply” is hardly what they think it is and they are shocked to discover that by that requirement we should literally be buying people guns and ammo in order to effect that government sponsored training.

When the due hards continue to argue “that’s not what regulated means!” I have to remind them I’ve been in several different Army Brigades where the logistics/quartermaster elements of the Brigade Support Battalion were named “regulators,” for that very literal translation of the word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

22 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Nah not triggered, just initially disappointed, and it wasn't a threat—wonder why you would suggest that it was?  As for “just quoting the Constitution”…if you say so.  Funny, it’s the same partial quote that those who want to erode gun rights use.  I guess I assumed you were doing the same, my honest apology.

As far as the high standard people should have when owning, carrying, using firearms…totally agree.  I expect that everyone should have a high standard in everything they do in life.  But if Karen wants to have a loaded pistol in her purse with “one in chamber” (I don’t know why anyone would carry a firearm for self defense without one in the chamber?), then that’s her right.  If she uses her firearm inappropriately/to cause problems, then she can answer for it.  But until then, carrying a firearm is still her right and it shouldn’t never be reduced or taken away.

But back to Kinzinger…he’s a politician.  He said what he had to say to get elected and now he’ll say what he has to say to stay relevant.  Justin Amash can’t stand Trump either (he voted to impeach him the first time), but I believe he’s more so of an honest type politician (compared to most) as he still stands for what he has stood for in the past.

...i'm guessing we're on the same side of most arguments...I'd argue that Karen should be required to test as proficient in her firearm...but that's some serious hair splitting if it gets to that point.  

Concur concerning Kinzinger.  He's doing literally whatever he can to get paid.  I can't argue with getting paid, but that bitch has sold every moral he ever claimed to get paid. 'He/That/She/It/Bag might as well be a facebook influencer.  

[Homestar]

6 hours ago, brabus said:

Well the facts refute your emotional claim. Plenty of incentive combined with exceptionally great training programs and safety culture handed down is why we have a microscopic amount of accidental gun deaths. You clearly know almost nothing about firearms, the industry, or the related laws (thousands of them by the way), while simultaneously painting half of America as idiots who are  reckless, don’t care about safety, etc…based on emotional conjecture and wildly inaccurate assumptions. Good work.

 

You mean the one where the govt has to approve you to buy a firearm and you have to beg them to allow you to defend yourself with a firearm? Yeah, zero support from me on that bullshit. Go back to my previous post on history repeatedly demonstrating why 2A is critical to our country’s survival. 

I get it. You like guns and have a phd level knowledge of them. Sorry for having an opinion. 

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Smokin said:

Anyone that thinks 'well-regulated' equals ANY type of control by the federal government, is are ignorant of history.

This is actually incorrect. And it's relatively easy to learn, just read the federalist paper on it. Number 29 I believe. It goes into quite explicit detail regarding the necessity of federal regulation of the state militias, for the purposes of quick spin up and unified strategy in a time of war.

 

You are right to imply that there were many people against any sort of federal control of a military/militia, but it was not only not everybody, but in fact a minority, as the amendment was ultimately voted in. 

 

The state selection of officers was meant to be the protection against federal tyranny. There is some discussion regarding the wide scale possession of firearms, but it is actually geared towards the impracticality of training the entire population due to the economic impact. Mostly, there's not a whole lot of evidence that the private ownership of firearms was considered one way or another, which gets to the crux of the matter.

 

They probably didn't even seem worth discussing because everybody owned guns. That was just the way of the times. However, an argument can be made that the gradual consolidation of military power to the federal level, a power that is nearly absolute in modern times, necessitates a broader and more permissive concept of personal firearm ownership, as the protection against federal tyranny has been mostly degraded with time.

[Day Man]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

I also love when idiots use “well regulated” in an argument for gun control not understanding the entomology of the phrase in its meaning.

🤔

[Lawman]

So your contribution to this is to make a comment regarding autocorrect and me not typing with my glasses on….

What an informed and helpful position.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brabus]

10 hours ago, Homestar said:

I get it. You like guns and have a phd level knowledge of them. Sorry for having an opinion. 

You’re as welcome to your opinion on this topic as a flat earth-er is to theirs, but your both objectively wrong. Start talking about the topic from a position of facts and logic with stronger historical knowledge (and logical application of said knowledge) and then you and others can have a meaningful conversation on this topic.