NSR: A gun on Every Corner: Discuss the NRA, Gun Ownership and All Those Non-Mass Shootings..

I think you sorta got my point: it isn't enumerated, Congress could just go ahead and outlaw it and a court would actually have to be pretty activist to block them.

The second actually guarantees a right to keep and bear arms, and it really needs to be amended to limit that or at least to limit it very much. Realizing that that has become necessary and that we do have the power to do that is maybe the first step.

The second maybe should be a discussion of "where and how much" as in "how to reshape it" rather than "how to get rid of it entirely." We'd rather only do this once in every couple-three centuries, if that.

And I'll throw out into the hopper that one of the things to recognize in here is that Prohibition was repealed-- but it wasn't really a failure. It certainly eroded our respect for law some, but we were much much less a nation of drunks after. I know "Mad Men" shocked people with its portrayal of how much my parents' generation drank-- but trust me, it was nowhere near as much as pre-prohibition generations. Prohibition worked, it just sundowned is all.

 

Was on a job in Fla and one of the project mgrs. gave me an elk roast. Had never had any and all I had to cook it in was an electric fry pan w/a high cover. I put in a bit of water along w/a couple onions and hoped for the best. It was one of the tastiest and tenderest piece of meat I've ever had. Received many compliments from the moochers I shared it with.

 

That's not only bad for (NRA) business, it's flaunting liberalism in the face of a nation that doesn't want any regulation at all.
They're conservative, not stupid- well, not in the sense that you can sneak up on them from behind with legislation calculated to limit their fun.

 

A lot of good candidates in the dem primary where I live. I think this guy might get my vote.

 

Why do people with mental health problems automatically lose a constitutional right?

Why not the first or the 5th?







Just playing devils advocate for those that do not think that the 2nd is a little different than say the 1st.

 

I see it more like people that have been convicted of fraud not being able to sell goods on TV or such.

Driving is not a constitutional right.

Also should people convicted of hate crimes, should they lose their right to free speech, for example they could get arrested if they put up a YouTube video talking about racial hatred.

We also have libel and slander laws that "limit" free speech in civil courts, we should also have laws as you say that punish people that sell guns to people with out licenses and people that lose guns.

If I have a pit-bull and it bites a neighbor, I can face liabilities, it should be the same if my gun is used in a crime or in some accident because I was careless with the gun.

 

Then you have something on the equal but opposite end of the spectrum.



2 Things:

• He obviously never took a course on how to handle fire firearms. The first thing they teach you is to treat all firearms as if they're loaded and NEVER ever point one at a person unless your going to have to possibly use it.
• I know it is supposed to come off as an overprotective father stereotype but it's just comical. And not in a "laughing with you" way. More of a "laughing at you" way. It reminds me of a house I go by in the Hampton Roads area where they have a "This House Protected By God & Guns" in the window. The ad and the sign are supposed to portray toughness and strength but is comical.

 

I was procrastinating, which is the only time the phrase "hey let's read Youtube comments" sounds good, but... well, this one was pretty funny.

His poor daughter is probably dying of embarrassment. Will he get more than 2 goats in trade for her?​

​

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/02/us/s...l-walkout-pro-second-amendment0358PMStoryLink

It's not just Charlottesville. It's America.

 

Any excuse to walk out of school is a good excuse.

BTW Impressive crowd, and token all the way in front.

 

Take a close look at that Black student. Y'all never watched El Cid?

 

NRA Touts Oliver North’s Expertise At Avoiding Jail Time For Colluding With Hostile Foreign Powers https://t.co/pKAwJLMBvo pic.twitter.com/XiZ5P6vngx

— The Onion (@TheOnion) May 7, 2018

 

Slavery and the Second Amendment...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/...mailed&version=Full&src=me&WT.nav=MostEmailed

{George} Mason and {Virginia Governor} Patrick Henry raised many arguments against ratification {of the Bill of Rights}. One concerned the militia. To appreciate their arguments, we must bear three things in mind about the time and place of the debate.

First, the majority population in eastern Virginia were enslaved blacks. Whites lived in constant fear of slave insurrection. Everyone knew about the 1739 slave rebellion in Stono, S.C., when blacks broke into a store, decapitated the shopkeepers, seized guns and powder, and marched with flying banners, beating drums and cries of “Liberty!” Up to 100 joined the rebellion before being engaged by a contingent of armed, mounted militiamen. Scores died in the ensuing battle.

Second, the principal instrument for slave control was the militia. In the main, the South had refused to commit her militias to the war against the British during the American Revolution out of fear that, if the militias departed, slaves would revolt. But while the militias were effective at slave control, they had proved themselves unequal to the task of fighting a professional army. Bunker Hill was the last militia victory during the Revolution. The Continental Army (aided by the French Navy) won the war.

Third, previously the militias were creatures of state governments. The new Constitution changed that. It divided authority over militias between the national and state governments, but gave the lion’s share of authority — including the power to organize, arm and discipline the militias — to Congress.

During the debate in Richmond, Mason and Henry suggested that the new Constitution gave Congress the power to subvert the slave system by disarming the militias. “Slavery is detested,” Henry reminded the audience. “The majority of Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South,” he said.​

​

Interesting if true.

 

It isn't or at least a lot of it isn't;

Bunker Hill wasn't a militia victory; they ran out of ammo and skedaddled leaving the field to the British. A pyrrhic victory for them, but a victory by any meaningful standard; they achieved their objective.

The militia did however achieve or participate with honor in several later victories, and King's Mountain, the true turning point of the war was entirely a militia victory-- no regulars were on the scene. The Cowpens involved regulars in a key role; but it was a militia charge that settled the day's issue.

And I find the notion that southern militia sat out the war to suppress the slaves a bit peculiar and dubious. For sure there were large numbers of southerners who had no dog in the fight but were concerned with the possibility of a slave revolt-- especially as the British were, off and on, trying to foment one. Probably those folks stayed home as it wasn't their war. But there was never any difficulty raising militia when there was a call-- whether Camden or King's Mountain or Eutaw Springs there were always more than a few hundred available, and the area wasn't very heavily populated.

And remember, slavery wasn't outlawed most places in the North until after the revolution. And there's a matter of definition here too. Any group of men engaged in hunting runaway slaves was ipso facto a militia-- it was part of what the word meant, along with resisting pirates, fighting fires, hunting outlaws and resisting invasion; the word meant something halfway between "posse" and "army."

 

You also needed militias to kill off the Amerindians.

 

Patron at CA drive thru sees robbery taking place inside restaurant & blasts the perp. Don't think I've seen one of these before.

https://w3.cdn.anvato.net/player/pr...9LCJodG1sNSI6dHJ1ZSwidG9rZW4iOiJkZWZhdWx0In0=

 

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/05/gov_kay_ivey_state_officials_t.html

Gov. Kay Ivey, state Superintendent Eric Mackey and Alabama Law Enforcement Secretary Hal Taylor announced today a program to authorize certain administrators to undergo training and have firearms stored on school campuses.

Ivey said the Alabama Sentry Program will begin immediately with the goal of being in place to start the 2018-2019 school year.

Ivey said it is the best way to protect schools now until the Legislature can reach consensus on a plan to put a school resource officer in every school.