Not again plz

Status
Not open for further replies.
Majinhoju said:
I don't really have a proper response that doesn't dive too much into politics (which I know is against the rules here). But I'll say that this is just the usual scapegoating and failling to address actual concerns they should be focusing on (gun control, mental health, growing white nationalism etc...).
Click to expand...
And yet you couldn't resist ;).
 
face-you-make-robert-downey-jr-copia.jpg
 
We are so losing our 2nd amendment once a demo rate gets in office. It will be all down hill then.
 
The NRA owns far too many politicians for any kind of meaningful legislation to ever not be immediately nucleared. Rest easy, shooters.





You can have my micropenis when you pry it from my lubed up hands. WAIT, GUN. I MEANT GUN.
 
vegeta535 said:
We are so losing our 2nd amendment once a demo rate gets in office. It will be all down hill then.
Click to expand...

Says someone who's probably never even read it, let alone understand why it was passed.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that a majority in Congress could not impose it's will by force by passing a law to disarm the state militias. The was *needed* (in Jefferson/Madison's mind at least) because the Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, provided for a Federal Army and they were terrified that a majority in Congress could impose it's will using said Army if the states did not have a way to fight back. It's also notable that this is pretty much what the British attempted to do at the start of the Revolutionary War. That's why the Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia".
 
gamerk2 said:
Says someone who's probably never even read it, let alone understand why it was passed.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that a majority in Congress could not impose it's will by force by passing a law to disarm the state militias. The was *needed* (in Jefferson/Madison's mind at least) because the Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, provided for a Federal Army and they were terrified that a majority in Congress could impose it's will using said Army if the states did not have a way to fight back. It's also notable that this is pretty much what the British attempted to do at the start of the Revolutionary War. That's why the Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia".
Click to expand...
I know what it states. Doesn't stop the mob mentality wanting it removes.
 
vegeta535 said:
We are so losing our 2nd amendment once a demo rate gets in office. It will be all down hill then.
Click to expand...
Won't happen. There's what, 400mil firearms in the country? Good luck with that. heh

viivo said:
The NRA owns far too many politicians for any kind of meaningful legislation to ever not be immediately nucleared. Rest easy, shooters.





You can have my micropenis when you pry it from my lubed up hands. WAIT, GUN. I MEANT GUN.
Click to expand...
I'm curious what "meaningful legislation" gets around shall not be infringed. 47 people were shot in Chicago over this weekend. Four died. Not a word. Odd.

I'm also curious what the obsession is between firearms and male genitalia from the anti-gunners. I always hear comments about it. I'm guessing its the side effects of being disconnected from the real world and being on anti-depressants since the sixth grade finally kicking? Who knows.


This topic doesn't get brought up that often on [H]. I'm guessing they're being scrubbed? Like a lot of online message boards, I'm going to venture a guess this place leans quite a bit left though. Iunno. I have just as much fun building my computers as I have gunsmithing. Oddly enough, the only thing that has been shot by them are deer and coyotes. Haven't walked into a school or store on their own. Weird.
 
vegeta535 said:
I know what it states. Doesn't stop the mob mentality wanting it removes.
Click to expand...

One could make an argument whether it still has a purpose, given that state militias haven't been a thing for about a century.

Regardless, if you take my explanation as correct, you run into the crux of the issue. My argument is this:

A: The Second Amendment was passed to prevent the Federal Government from infringing on the organization and arming of individual state militias.
B: Per *numerous* other prior Supreme Court pendents going back to the early 19th century, states are free to regulate their militias as they see fit.

These two arguments lead to a single logical Constitutional argument: The Second Amendment is limited in scope to *only* the Federal government, and states could, if they so desired, manage the sales of guns in whichever way they so chose, including outright banning them.

So yes, I'm arguing against the NRAs interpretation of the Second Amendment on Tenth Amendment grounds.
 
You can muddy it up all you want, but its simple.

Shall not be infringed means, shall not be infringed.

They knew what they were writing. Madison and Mason were not idiots.
 
Westwood Arrakis said:
Won't happen. There's what, 400mil firearms in the country? Good luck with that. heh


I'm curious what "meaningful legislation" gets around shall not be infringed. 47 people were shot in Chicago over this weekend. Four died. Not a word. Odd.

I'm also curious what the obsession is between firearms and male genitalia from the anti-gunners. I always hear comments about it. I'm guessing its the side effects of being disconnected from the real world and being on anti-depressants since the sixth grade finally kicking? Who knows.


This topic doesn't get brought up that often on [H]. I'm guessing they're being scrubbed? Like a lot of online message boards, I'm going to venture a guess this place leans quite a bit left though. Iunno. I have just as much fun building my computers as I have gunsmithing. Oddly enough, the only thing that has been shot by them are deer and coyotes. Haven't walked into a school or store on their own. Weird.
Click to expand...

no, it gets talked about in genmay because there's no reason for it to be on the public forum outside of the news section..
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
no, it gets talked about in genmay because there's no reason for it to be on the public forum outside of the news section..
Click to expand...
Eh? I'm guessing a pay section of the forum? That explains it. I just thought the staff was really on top of it or we were all under the understanding there's no winning the debate.
 
gamerk2 said:
Says someone who's probably never even read it, let alone understand why it was passed.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that a majority in Congress could not impose it's will by force by passing a law to disarm the state militias. The was *needed* (in Jefferson/Madison's mind at least) because the Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, provided for a Federal Army and they were terrified that a majority in Congress could impose it's will using said Army if the states did not have a way to fight back. It's also notable that this is pretty much what the British attempted to do at the start of the Revolutionary War. That's why the Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia".
Click to expand...

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

why do you guys always stop reading there? its like you think google is broken for everyone else or something. and people do form militias, they just get treated as domestic terrorist or white nationalist by the media so you are conditioned to not associate them with the second amendment.

what other countries feel the need to include the immensely obvious permit for their own military to have access to guns if this is intended to only be talking about the military? of course this reading is just dishonest, why apply dumb logic? we can go back and find what the writers themselves said about firearms and regular people.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

i could go on... stop pretending that google is broken. the 2nd guarantees the right to own firearms. if you dont like that you need to repeal the 2nd amendment(which is totally doable and possible), so go do that instead of trying to pick at the text. its pure.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Nope, just moved to soapbox, one of the subscription forums. It is a part of general mayhem.
Click to expand...
Ah. I was unaware there was a subscription forum. From the sounds of it, I'd probably be best to steer away from it since I enjoy building firearms as much I enjoy building computers.
 
Fix Me said:
That's what you all said when Obama was in office. And Bill Clinton. Funny, it never happened.

And I thought we were done with the "Video games cause violence despite all evidence otherwise". So sick of it.
Click to expand...
It will never change. They will always blame everything but the individual. Push their narrative is all they care about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erexx
like this
vegeta535 said:
It will never change. They will always blame everything but the individual. Push their narrative is all they care about.
Click to expand...
My point, which you have completely sidestepped, is that one side always complains about it happening and it never does. And never will. It's a non-issue, but one side loves to yell and scream about how it will happen. It. Never. Will. Ever.
 
Westwood Arrakis said:
I'm curious what "meaningful legislation" gets around shall not be infringed. 47 people were shot in Chicago over this weekend. Four died. Not a word. Odd.
Click to expand...
By the same shooter?


Westwood Arrakis said:
This topic doesn't get brought up that often on [H]. I'm guessing they're being scrubbed? Like a lot of online message boards, I'm going to venture a guess this place leans quite a bit left though. Iunno.
Click to expand...
The owner/management seems to have recognized long ago that political circlejerks are pointless whitenoise, and there are plenty of other places online to go for that. Already enough animosity just keeping AMD/Nvidia/Intel fanboy wars under control.
 
Last edited:
purple_monster said:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

why do you guys always stop reading there? its like you think google is broken for everyone else or something. and people do form militias, they just get treated as domestic terrorist or white nationalist by the media so you are conditioned to not associate them with the second amendment.
Click to expand...

And why do you ignore the first part? Why do you think the 2nd Amendment is the only one that explicitly specified "A well regulated militia"? Why not just have the Amendment state "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and leave it at that?

Now, if you wanted, you could try and make the legal argument that all citizens are technically militia members due to the possibility of being drafted, but no such legal reasoning has ever been considered by courts.

You also ignored my second argument, specifically the scope of the 2nd Amendment is limited to preventing the Federal Government from infringing on the states rights to form militias, and provided no limitations on the states to regulate said militias as they see fit.

Finally, you also have ambiguity on what is actually permitted by the 2nd Amendment, as it specifies "Arms", recognized as "Armaments". Using your logic, do individuals have the Constitutional right to own an M1 Abrams MBT? A F-35? A thermonuclear warhead? Where do the limitations begin and end? If you take the NRA's logic to it's extreme end, the I argue that every individual in the country has the right to a nuclear weapon, as neither the Federal Government or the States have the right to restrict the sale of arms to individuals. And I think (hope?) everyone here agrees this line of logic would be beyond idiotic.
 
Westwood Arrakis said:
Ah. I was unaware there was a subscription forum. From the sounds of it, I'd probably be best to steer away from it since I enjoy building firearms as much I enjoy building computers.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you came to that assumption.. the site owner and most of the moderators here could say the same thing (about building firearms) and as GoldenTiger said, there's also a firearms subforum in Genmay as well. This site is definitely more right leaning than left, esp. as demonstrated in Genmay and its Soapbox subforum.
 
Last edited:
T4rd said:
Not sure how you came to that assumption.. the site owner and most of the moderators here could say the same thing and as GoldenTiger said, there's also a firearms subforum in Genmay as well. This site is definitely more right leaning than left, esp. as demonstrated in Genmay and its Soapbox subforum.
Click to expand...
Huh. I just had the feeling it was left. Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong; just ask my wife. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this
gamerk2 said:
Finally, you also have ambiguity on what is actually permitted by the 2nd Amendment, as it specifies "Arms", recognized as "Armaments". Using your logic, do individuals have the Constitutional right to own an M1 Abrams MBT? A F-35? A thermonuclear warhead? Where do the limitations begin and end? If you take the NRA's logic to it's extreme end, the I argue that every individual in the country has the right to a nuclear weapon, as neither the Federal Government or the States have the right to restrict the sale of arms to individuals. And I think (hope?) everyone here agrees this line of logic would be beyond idiotic.
Click to expand...

Nope, if I wanna buy an F35 and can get it financed, GIMME MY F35!
 
gamerk2 said:
And why do you ignore the first part? Why do you think the 2nd Amendment is the only one that explicitly specified "A well regulated militia"? Why not just have the Amendment state "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and leave it at that?

Now, if you wanted, you could try and make the legal argument that all citizens are technically militia members due to the possibility of being drafted, but no such legal reasoning has ever been considered by courts.

You also ignored my second argument, specifically the scope of the 2nd Amendment is limited to preventing the Federal Government from infringing on the states rights to form militias, and provided no limitations on the states to regulate said militias as they see fit.

Finally, you also have ambiguity on what is actually permitted by the 2nd Amendment, as it specifies "Arms", recognized as "Armaments". Using your logic, do individuals have the Constitutional right to own an M1 Abrams MBT? A F-35? A thermonuclear warhead? Where do the limitations begin and end? If you take the NRA's logic to it's extreme end, the I argue that every individual in the country has the right to a nuclear weapon, as neither the Federal Government or the States have the right to restrict the sale of arms to individuals. And I think (hope?) everyone here agrees this line of logic would be beyond idiotic.
Click to expand...

dumb hyperbole. go away.
 
purple_monster said:
dumb hyperbole. go away.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's a perfectly valid question: Do I, per the Second Amendment, have the Constitutionally protected right to own a Nuke?

Hyperbole? Yes, but the point is valid: The Federal Government/States either have the right to decide which arms are permissible for an individual to own, or not. You can't have it both ways.
 
I think it's worth noting that guns have come a long way since the 2nd Amendment was written...
 
eh, it's a crutch and a dick extension for little men. there will be minor regulation, but largely a majority of the population is going to view gun owner ship as a diseases and a sure indication that something is very wrong mentally and sexually with the owner, that's going to fix the problem on it's own
 
Majinhoju said:
I think it's worth noting that guns have come a long way since the 2nd Amendment was written...
Click to expand...
I suggest you submit your notes to your local Congressman using quill and parchment then.
SOAREVERSOR said:
eh, it's a crutch and a dick extension for little men. there will be minor regulation, but largely a majority of the population is going to view gun owner ship as a diseases and a sure indication that something is very wrong mentally and sexually with the owner, that's going to fix the problem on it's own
Click to expand...
Calls guns "dick extensions"; top games played are Quake and Doom. XD
dgz said:
Yeah, [H] is totally a lefty site lol. Get a sub to GenMay. Sadly, you'd fit right in.
Click to expand...
Honestly I never would have guessed this place would be more Right. I'm on a lot of forums, and any forum that is not directly related to firearms are all Left. [H] would be the first.
 
Westwood Arrakis said:
I suggest you submit your notes to your local Congressman using quill and parchment then.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make my point any less valid.
Anyways, it's not my battle. I'm not American, thus far less worried that my children will be gunned down at school. But I see no problem changing gun regulations if the public keep abusing their "right" to own firearms. When car accidents you often see changes: increased fines for distracted driving, changes to the licensing process, increased insurance rates etc... I don't see why the same login can't be applied to firearms.
 
I've been reading here for a very long time (almost 20 years), and I can confirm the [H] is pretty "right-leaning" when anything even remotely political comes up. There is also a fairly strong anti-union sentiment here, to my experience...

All of that being said, I personally object to the terms "right-leaning" and "left-leaning."

It just seems like people getting grouped together pointlessly and all it does is trivialize their beliefs. For example. I have no problem with people owning guns and using them responsibly. I have no problems with people smoking weed either, again responsibly. I have no problems with people immigrating to the US regardless of their countries of origin, though they need to be here legally. I believe in universal healthcare AND fiscal responsibility and I am a firm believer that both of these things are achievable in the US because "lesser" countries seem to manage it well enough - we can and should do better. Some of my views are "right" and others are "left" and still others are both/neither. Regardless, to call me right or left would be to pigeonhole me and my beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erexx
like this
mvmiller12 said:
I've been reading here for a very long time (almost 20 years), and I can confirm the [H] is pretty "right-leaning" when anything even remotely political comes up. There is also a fairly strong anti-union sentiment here, to my experience...

All of that being said, I personally object to the terms "right-leaning" and "left-leaning."

It just seems like people getting grouped together pointlessly and all it does is trivialize their beliefs. For example. I have no problem with people owning guns and using them responsibly. I have no problems with people smoking weed either, again responsibly. I have no problems with people immigrating to the US regardless of their countries of origin, though they need to be here legally. I believe in universal healthcare AND fiscal responsibility and I am a firm believer that both of these things are achievable in the US because "lesser" countries seem to manage it well enough - we can and should do better. Some of my views are "right" and others are "left" and still others are both/neither. Regardless, to call me right or left would be to pigeonhole me and my beliefs.
Click to expand...

I've observed so many people that fall deeply into the stereotypical categories that it's nice come across people who are a little more balanced as your beliefs seem to be.

As far as guns go, I'm not for just banning them all and I don't want to punish responsible gun owners but I think we need to do more than shrug our shoulders when gun violence becomes so rampant.
 
Majinhoju said:
Anyways, it's not my battle. I'm not American, thus far less worried that my children will be gunned down at school.
Click to expand...
I'm not worried either. Stop watching the news. You've been lied to.
mvmiller12 said:
I've been reading here for a very long time (almost 20 years), and I can confirm the [H] is pretty "right-leaning" when anything even remotely political comes up. There is also a fairly strong anti-union sentiment here, to my experience...

All of that being said, I personally object to the terms "right-leaning" and "left-leaning."

It just seems like people getting grouped together pointlessly and all it does is trivialize their beliefs. For example. I have no problem with people owning guns and using them responsibly. I have no problems with people smoking weed either, again responsibly. I have no problems with people immigrating to the US regardless of their countries of origin, though they need to be here legally. I believe in universal healthcare AND fiscal responsibility and I am a firm believer that both of these things are achievable in the US because "lesser" countries seem to manage it well enough - we can and should do better. Some of my views are "right" and others are "left" and still others are both/neither. Regardless, to call me right or left would be to pigeonhole me and my beliefs.
Click to expand...
I hate it to, but I really couldn't come up with another way to ask about GenMay. I am in line with most of your thoughts as well, but I'm not going to follow up with a post in all caps telling you how you are wrong on the ones I don't agree with. I think that's the biggest difference. I'm on some forums where you ask a simple question, and just get blasted page after page about how everything i say is wrong. Its nauseating.

That being said, I did sub to [H] and am happy I did. I like it here and I think I'll become more active.
 
Majinhoju said:
I don't really have a proper response that doesn't dive too much into politics (which I know is against the rules here). But I'll say that this is just the usual scapegoating and failling to address actual concerns they should be focusing on (gun control, mental health, growing white nationalism etc...).
Click to expand...

Well, you're not even American so your opinion doesn't matter. How's that for Nationalism? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top