Large capacity magazines

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

1. If it's a God-given right, where in the Bible is there anything to support this?

You're reaching here man. All I can tell you is what our Founding Fathers believed. I get this through the Constitution, Bill of Rights and their own personal writings.

As for the bible, I personally believe that book is mostly fiction and parables written as an example of how people should live their lives. However, I do believe that Christ is the son of God.

2. What is the meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."? (i.e., the first words of the 2nd amendment) I've always thought that meant that the states could defend themselves against the central government, or join together in fighting a foreign enemy. But I'd argue that is does not say there should be unregulated gun ownership by individuals. That is an interpretation.

I can support the 2nd Amendment just like all the other Amendments with this:

Put yourself in the place of a colonist back in the 1770's when the British were went over by our king to put us "in our place".

What exactly did the British do to their own citizens?

They would not let them form large groups (the cause of the 1st Amendment).
They wouldn't let them worship how they wanted since British citizens were supposed to be members of the church of England (1st Amendment).
They took over the press (the cause of the 1st Amendment).
They unarmed them (the cause of the 2nd Amendment).
They forced the colonists to take in the army and feed them (the cause of the 3rd Amendment).
The British searched anyone at any time within the home or person without any cause (the cause of the 4th Amendment).
They forced the 'detained' to answer questions and often tortured them to get the answer they wanted (the cause of the 5th Amendment).
The British army punished as they saw fit, on a daily basis, with no regard to constancy (the cause of the 6th Amendment).
The British army would extort money, product and valuables in leu of punishment (the cause of the 7th Amendment).
The British army could charge an extreme amount for crimes, again no constancy (the cause of the 8th Amendment).

If you want to know the reason for the Bill of Rights, the British did all these things to their own citizens. Our Founding Fathers believed that these things were granted by God and should be respected at all costs. No government should EVER take these rights away.

You should read the Federalists Papers. They are quite fascinating.

As for "voting" being mentioned in the "expanded" Bill of Rights, yes that is true, but it's mostly to give the rights to women and people of color, so this reference by you is pretty thin.
Voting is not a right granted by God. It is something citizens do to create the type of government we want and has been amended many times over.

[Cascade Kid]

Should it be easier to buy or gun or to vote?

I see you are trying to get feisty here.

perhaps ... but it is a serious question

A gun is mentioned in the Bill of Rights....voting is not. But both are personal preferences and RIGHTS our citizens have.

But.....

In my opinion, there should not be any hinderances on my owning any weapon I want. I base this off of the FACT that our Founding Fathers knew that the 2nd Amendment is a God Given Right, NOT PROVIDED BY OUR GOVERNMENT. The only thing that government can do is take our rights away, and that is what the Constitution is for, limiting what government can do.

Voting has always been for our citizens.......not everyone that's within he country. Voting has had lots of changes to it's laws including:
Age restrictions
Gender
Property ownership
Ballot box shit
Politicing at polling places
etc...

Guns are a God Given Right, not voting.

Just my crazy 2 cents.

Not crazy at all. I enjoy our conversations.

No, voting is not in the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) but it is in other amendments. And of course you are correct that the amendments have changed "voting rights" over time. Does that make it any less of a right?

I'll throw out two other things in response:

1. If it's a God-given right, where in the Bible is there anything to support this?

2. What is the meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."? (i.e., the first words of the 2nd amendment) I've always thought that meant that the states could defend themselves against the central government, or join together in fighting a foreign enemy. But I'd argue that is does not say there should be unregulated gun ownership by individuals. That is an interpretation.

The states can defend themselves in accordance with the Constitution by means of militia. However, the National Defense Act of 1916 signed by Woodrow Wilson at the height of WW1 gave the power of authority to the Federal government. States still hold in its consitutions how militia operate and are called into service, but these have little authoritive power beyond peacekeeping deployments.

Also, militia are formed, trained and activated by government and can not self deploy or have an organized structure outside of the government. Additionally, the President can call all able bodied men age 45 and younger to report for duty.

Nonetheless, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, a People right. The Bill of Rights were created to ratify the Constitution to assure People have guaranteed rights. We have the right to a well-regulated militia, but this doesn't necessarily mean to manage with a hiearchy of ranks or deploy one. But that we have the right for them to be well-equiped, well-trained, and well-executed, and not impeded to do so by our governments (state or federal) by not allowing the proper support to do so. As for guns? Yes, we have the individual right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed. Again, these are guaranteed individual rights just like freedom of speech, speedy trial, or search and seizure, and Acts or "law" as we like to call them are not allowed to modify or ratify these guaranteed rights.

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans' rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... 0religion.

I'd like to add that criminals do not follow any of these laws that are enacted or imposed. And no homeowner in a self-defense situation has ever said, "gee, I'm glad the law only allows me to have 10 rounds in my gun".

[gil]

1. If it's a God-given right, where in the Bible is there anything to support this?

You're reaching here man. All I can tell you is what our Founding Fathers believed. I get this through the Constitution, Bill of Rights and their own personal writings.

As for the bible, I personally believe that book is mostly fiction and parables written as an example of how people should live their lives. However, I do believe that Christ is the son of God.

2. What is the meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."? (i.e., the first words of the 2nd amendment) I've always thought that meant that the states could defend themselves against the central government, or join together in fighting a foreign enemy. But I'd argue that is does not say there should be unregulated gun ownership by individuals. That is an interpretation.

I can support the 2nd Amendment just like all the other Amendments with this:

Put yourself in the place of a colonist back in the 1770's when the British were went over by our king to put us "in our place".

What exactly did the British do to their own citizens?

They would not let them form large groups (the cause of the 1st Amendment).
They wouldn't let them worship how they wanted since British citizens were supposed to be members of the church of England (1st Amendment).
They took over the press (the cause of the 1st Amendment).
They unarmed them (the cause of the 2nd Amendment).
They forced the colonists to take in the army and feed them (the cause of the 3rd Amendment).
The British searched anyone at any time within the home or person without any cause (the cause of the 4th Amendment).
They forced the 'detained' to answer questions and often tortured them to get the answer they wanted (the cause of the 5th Amendment).
The British army punished as they saw fit, on a daily basis, with no regard to constancy (the cause of the 6th Amendment).
The British army would extort money, product and valuables in leu of punishment (the cause of the 7th Amendment).
The British army could charge an extreme amount for crimes, again no constancy (the cause of the 8th Amendment).

If you want to know the reason for the Bill of Rights, the British did all these things to their own citizens. Our Founding Fathers believed that these things were granted by God and should be respected at all costs. No government should EVER take these rights away.

You should read the Federalists Papers. They are quite fascinating.

As for "voting" being mentioned in the "expanded" Bill of Rights, yes that is true, but it's mostly to give the rights to women and people of color, so this reference by you is pretty thin.
Voting is not a right granted by God. It is something citizens do to create the type of government we want and has been amended many times over.

Honestly I'm flabbergasted that voting is not mentioned explicitly in the body of the constitution. Do you think that is because the founders *assumed* that we would be a democracy? It seems that how this played out (starting with the 14th amendment) is that the states' were limited on who received the franchise? (i.e., various amendments that said it could not be limited based on race, gender, or age over 18).

You have inspired me to look a bit at the Federalist Papers. Thanks.

Would you argue that these rights (in the bill of rights) are absolute? It seems there are a number of restrictions on free speech, for example.

I'm curious about something else. I know people who argue for a literal interpretation of the constitution, as opposed to arguing for what the founders meant by it. Would you argue that we should not have libel and slander laws? These laws put restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

[gil]

I see you are trying to get feisty here.

perhaps ... but it is a serious question

A gun is mentioned in the Bill of Rights....voting is not. But both are personal preferences and RIGHTS our citizens have.

But.....

In my opinion, there should not be any hinderances on my owning any weapon I want. I base this off of the FACT that our Founding Fathers knew that the 2nd Amendment is a God Given Right, NOT PROVIDED BY OUR GOVERNMENT. The only thing that government can do is take our rights away, and that is what the Constitution is for, limiting what government can do.

Voting has always been for our citizens.......not everyone that's within he country. Voting has had lots of changes to it's laws including:
Age restrictions
Gender
Property ownership
Ballot box shit
Politicing at polling places
etc...

Guns are a God Given Right, not voting.

Just my crazy 2 cents.

Not crazy at all. I enjoy our conversations.

No, voting is not in the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) but it is in other amendments. And of course you are correct that the amendments have changed "voting rights" over time. Does that make it any less of a right?

I'll throw out two other things in response:

1. If it's a God-given right, where in the Bible is there anything to support this?

2. What is the meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."? (i.e., the first words of the 2nd amendment) I've always thought that meant that the states could defend themselves against the central government, or join together in fighting a foreign enemy. But I'd argue that is does not say there should be unregulated gun ownership by individuals. That is an interpretation.

The states can defend themselves in accordance with the Constitution by means of militia. However, the National Defense Act of 1916 signed by Woodrow Wilson at the height of WW1 gave the power of authority to the Federal government. States still hold in its consitutions how militia operate and are called into service, but these have little authoritive power beyond peacekeeping deployments.

Also, militia are formed, trained and activated by government and can not self deploy or have an organized structure outside of the government. Additionally, the President can call all able bodied men age 45 and younger to report for duty.

Nonetheless, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, a People right. The Bill of Rights were created to ratify the Constitution to assure People have guaranteed rights. We have the right to a well-regulated militia, but this doesn't necessarily mean to manage with a hiearchy of ranks or deploy one. But that we have the right for them to be well-equiped, well-trained, and well-executed, and not impeded to do so by our governments (state or federal) by not allowing the proper support to do so. As for guns? Yes, we have the individual right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed. Again, these are guaranteed individual rights just like freedom of speech, speedy trial, or search and seizure, and Acts or "law" as we like to call them are not allowed to modify or ratify these guaranteed rights.

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans' rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... 0religion.

I'd like to add that criminals do not follow any of these laws that are enacted or imposed. And no homeowner in a self-defense situation has ever said, "gee, I'm glad the law only allows me to have 10 rounds in my gun".

I tend to lean toward thinking that the intentions of the founders matter. I agree that they would have supported an individual right to bear arms. Does that right extend to the guys riding around Baltimore or Chicago shooting each other and killing and maiming innocent bystanders? Obviously those crimes should be punished (and severely, in my book, because I'm more or less an Old Testament justice kind of person. But what about having the guns in the first place? I think there are good arguments for restrictions on certain kinds of weapons, and maybe restrictions in certain parts of the certain cities. And certainly or people who have been convicted of prior violent crimes. Do you think that the founders would think these restrictions are reasonable? (i.e., reasonable limitations on second amendment rights?)

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

The only absolute about rights are that your rights only go as far as another persons rights. Thus, you can claim freedom of speech, but cannot yell "fire" in a crowded room. This example of freedom of speech has consequences when the stampede hits and someone gets hurt.

As for voting rights. The federal government, even 200 years ago, placed this responsibility on the states.

[Cascade Kid]

1. If it's a God-given right, where in the Bible is there anything to support this?

You're reaching here man. All I can tell you is what our Founding Fathers believed. I get this through the Constitution, Bill of Rights and their own personal writings.

As for the bible, I personally believe that book is mostly fiction and parables written as an example of how people should live their lives. However, I do believe that Christ is the son of God.

2. What is the meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."? (i.e., the first words of the 2nd amendment) I've always thought that meant that the states could defend themselves against the central government, or join together in fighting a foreign enemy. But I'd argue that is does not say there should be unregulated gun ownership by individuals. That is an interpretation.

I can support the 2nd Amendment just like all the other Amendments with this:

Put yourself in the place of a colonist back in the 1770's when the British were went over by our king to put us "in our place".

What exactly did the British do to their own citizens?

They would not let them form large groups (the cause of the 1st Amendment).
They wouldn't let them worship how they wanted since British citizens were supposed to be members of the church of England (1st Amendment).
They took over the press (the cause of the 1st Amendment).
They unarmed them (the cause of the 2nd Amendment).
They forced the colonists to take in the army and feed them (the cause of the 3rd Amendment).
The British searched anyone at any time within the home or person without any cause (the cause of the 4th Amendment).
They forced the 'detained' to answer questions and often tortured them to get the answer they wanted (the cause of the 5th Amendment).
The British army punished as they saw fit, on a daily basis, with no regard to constancy (the cause of the 6th Amendment).
The British army would extort money, product and valuables in leu of punishment (the cause of the 7th Amendment).
The British army could charge an extreme amount for crimes, again no constancy (the cause of the 8th Amendment).

If you want to know the reason for the Bill of Rights, the British did all these things to their own citizens. Our Founding Fathers believed that these things were granted by God and should be respected at all costs. No government should EVER take these rights away.

You should read the Federalists Papers. They are quite fascinating.

As for "voting" being mentioned in the "expanded" Bill of Rights, yes that is true, but it's mostly to give the rights to women and people of color, so this reference by you is pretty thin.
Voting is not a right granted by God. It is something citizens do to create the type of government we want and has been amended many times over.

Honestly I'm flabbergasted that voting is not mentioned explicitly in the body of the constitution. Do you think that is because the founders *assumed* that we would be a democracy? It seems that how this played out (starting with the 14th amendment) is that the states' were limited on who received the franchise? (i.e., various amendments that said it could not be limited based on race, gender, or age over 18).

You have inspired me to look a bit at the Federalist Papers. Thanks.

Would you argue that these rights (in the bill of rights) are absolute? It seems there are a number of restrictions on free speech, for example.

I'm curious about something else. I know people who argue for a literal interpretation of the constitution, as opposed to arguing for what the founders meant by it. Would you argue that we should not have libel and slander laws? These laws put restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

The reason voting isn't in the Bill of Rights is because it is a socialist act. It endores the rights of others, therefore not an individual right.

The Bill of Rights is not "unlimited". For example, you or the press can't wrongfully slander someone because you have free speech. This would affectively impede 'that someone's' liberties. You also can't uninhibitly wheel around a firearm either, so there are limitations on your 2nd Amendment. As to limitations to free-forming a militia, unless of course, the govenment impedes your individual right to be properly trained and directed. There's always a conflunce point which is why the limitations are always being put the the test on various government levels.

[Cascade Kid]

perhaps ... but it is a serious question


Not crazy at all. I enjoy our conversations.

No, voting is not in the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) but it is in other amendments. And of course you are correct that the amendments have changed "voting rights" over time. Does that make it any less of a right?

I'll throw out two other things in response:

1. If it's a God-given right, where in the Bible is there anything to support this?

2. What is the meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."? (i.e., the first words of the 2nd amendment) I've always thought that meant that the states could defend themselves against the central government, or join together in fighting a foreign enemy. But I'd argue that is does not say there should be unregulated gun ownership by individuals. That is an interpretation.

The states can defend themselves in accordance with the Constitution by means of militia. However, the National Defense Act of 1916 signed by Woodrow Wilson at the height of WW1 gave the power of authority to the Federal government. States still hold in its consitutions how militia operate and are called into service, but these have little authoritive power beyond peacekeeping deployments.

Also, militia are formed, trained and activated by government and can not self deploy or have an organized structure outside of the government. Additionally, the President can call all able bodied men age 45 and younger to report for duty.

Nonetheless, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, a People right. The Bill of Rights were created to ratify the Constitution to assure People have guaranteed rights. We have the right to a well-regulated militia, but this doesn't necessarily mean to manage with a hiearchy of ranks or deploy one. But that we have the right for them to be well-equiped, well-trained, and well-executed, and not impeded to do so by our governments (state or federal) by not allowing the proper support to do so. As for guns? Yes, we have the individual right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed. Again, these are guaranteed individual rights just like freedom of speech, speedy trial, or search and seizure, and Acts or "law" as we like to call them are not allowed to modify or ratify these guaranteed rights.

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans' rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... 0religion.

I'd like to add that criminals do not follow any of these laws that are enacted or imposed. And no homeowner in a self-defense situation has ever said, "gee, I'm glad the law only allows me to have 10 rounds in my gun".

I tend to lean toward thinking that the intentions of the founders matter. I agree that they would have supported an individual right to bear arms. Does that right extend to the guys riding around Baltimore or Chicago shooting each other and killing and maiming innocent bystanders? Obviously those crimes should be punished (and severely, in my book, because I'm more or less an Old Testament justice kind of person. But what about having the guns in the first place? I think there are good arguments for restrictions on certain kinds of weapons, and maybe restrictions in certain parts of the certain cities. And certainly or people who have been convicted of prior violent crimes. Do you think that the founders would think these restrictions are reasonable? (i.e., reasonable limitations on second amendment rights?)

Most "gun violence" is self-inflicted, around 65%. The majority actual gun violence that impedes the liberty of another individual happens in social and economically depressed areas. In our world in the PNW you'll find most of these violent crimes in these settings too. Oftentime related to drugs and other illegal activity.

I don't see any good argument on restricting any kind of guns. There's very good reason the Bill of Rights was formed and bearing arms is #2. I don't know if you have every shot an AR15 before. It is the #1 home defense weapon and #1 rifle sold in the US for a very good reason. It is easy to shoot, no massive recoil, less reloading, looks scary, has accessory rails to mount various sights and lights to it. It is my first choice for home defense and is the one that could give an elderly mother the best opportunity to defend a home. Here's a little factoid, 90% of "gun violence is commited with a handgun. That's right, not an AR15, but a handgun.

People who have been convicted of prior violent crimes are restricted. They have to actualy go to court and let a judge determine if they can be allowed to purchase firearms again.

No, the founders would not see any of this as reasonable. It's interesting to hear some arguments out there that will say that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time of black power musks, and if the forefathers would've seen our new evolved weapons the 2nd would look entirely different. Therefore, in the eyes of anti-gun, the 2nd Amendment has serious limitations because it did not include semi auto guns. But on the otherhand, the law-makers thought it was important to be sure that electronic forms of media were protected under the 1st Amendment. Sounds like a double-standard against your Bill of Rights to me. And oh, who needs them to confirm social media is protect under the 1st anyway? I don't.

The founders wrote these Bill of Rights to guarantee your individual protection against a tyrannical government. Letting law-makers gaslight us and use strawman agruments to distort reality is a definition of being tyrannical.

Anti-gun groups and politicians are advocating, on one-hand, coherent solutions, but on the other hand, advocate more restrictions on responsible, law-bidding gun owners?!?! That's rich. Nobody is saying there shouldn't be any guns laws, they are saying this group of anti-gun lobbyists are full of it. There are alread over 300 federal gun laws in the books, and 20,000 on the state and local level. Yet, the only solution is more restrictions on the responsible gun owners?

Did you know gun violence has fallen since 1990 while more guns have been placed into hands of responsible gun owners?

aguns31.png (14.21 KiB) Viewed 4756 times

This is the problem with gun laws. People want to write laws to eliminate guns from good responsible people that get background checks already to buy guns. However, they do nothing about promoting gun safety opportunities such as training by way of TV ad outreach. What does this tell you about gun control?

I think people really need to step back if they want to fix gun violence problems. There are criminals, especially around drugs and gangs, that are getting free passes. And these are the people at most risk of gun violence. There's also a problem in our local judicial system allowing criminals with the propensity of violence go free without any punishment or accountability. We 'responsible gun owners' are being played by our government and they are setting up all of the failure to do so. Again, if they actually cared about responsibility, then where are the ads to encourage gun safety and gun safety courses?

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Damn, Cascade Kid is AWESOME!!

[Cascade Kid]

Damn, Cascade Kid is AWESOME!!

It's easy to argue because the group of people we are having to agruing against are completely driving an agenda based on collective control of every American. There are two major groups of people; first group: the herd mentality belief group that need social collectiveness, and the second group which are free individualality people that believe in maximum liberty. There are sub-groups within these primary groups, but these are the two major groups butting heads.

People that believe in government order and social alignments are always fighting against the Constitution. However, if you take people that place individualism with maximum liberty as first priority then suddenly the Constitution makes a lot more sense to co-exist with. The only thing the extreme Left can do to counter this deviation that goes against it's ideals, is attempt to systematically dismantle the Bill of Rights and gaslight problems to distort facts in order to attempt to manipulate and pervert the Constitution.

Here are two very important matters the extreme Left are always targeting... First is energy aka. fossil fuels, and the second are your gun rights. These are the two major strongholds of Libertarians and Conservatives. They are doing everything to undermine this so they can weaken the status quo as much as possible. Their endgame is to have control on American lives and liberty. They can't defeat their counterparts if their counterparts have control of guns and control of most of the energy (by way of living in these geographical areas that contain energy resources and resourcing these energies to support their local economies). Effectively weakening America.

The Bills Washington State are passing will have an injunction placed on them the day the governor signs the Bills. These Bills ignore current Federal case law such as the Bruen Decision and Murdock vs Pennsylvania. Here's a funny, but yet great video from a YouTube channel Washington Gun Law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5-b56XFvmk Enjoy!