The gun control issue will never be resolved until we admit the 2nd Amendment is flawed and start negotiating with empathy and understanding.
Daddy was right. Ain't no use in talking about religion, politics, whether that dress makes yer wife look fat, or guns... unless you're sitting among a bunch of hunters all dressed up in their "out-to-kill" finery, oiling stocks and cutting cross-hatches into their bullet points.…
Article comments
276 - gonzo marx
for Jack in #270 - well now..i would not advise trying to smack me ..forehead or anywhere else, but the mat is always open to those who want to try
but i digresss...
i completely disagree with you postulate about "well regulated"...the link you gave is by no means definitive or even authoritative...yet even there the very first line is from a court ruling which states...""Regulate, as ordinarily used, means to subject to rules or restrictions,
>to adjust by rule or method, to govern [...]"
> Simkins v. State, 249 P. 168, 35 Okla. Cr. 143."
which describes my position and understanding of the definition...not yours
in the article you linked to, the author goes on with even further fallacy by utilizing a usage of the term concerning multi-barrel firearms...which did NOT exist in the time period that the Founders wrote the words under discussion
again, i must stand on the position that if they meant training, they would have said so specifically based on the meticulous use of language in the entirety of the document
so you know..i HAVE a background in the military..and was raised with firearms by a Dutch Grandfather who was one of a long line of gunsmiths/swordsmiths...even there "regulated fire" is NOT "well trained" shooting, but timed and tempered use of rounds for maximum efficiency, which is trained behavior, but the regulation is about rate of fire and careful; targeting of each round
thus my entire point..it is the ENTIRE wording of the second amendment that needs discussion, the "well regulated militia" part being key, since they are the Object of the "shall not be infringed" portion
no Tricks, no convolutions or hidden esoterica here...simple parsing of the basic language is all that is required, then determine how to implement the Intent inherent in the words themselves...
Excelsior?
277 - Clavos
Here's an interesting piece from a very unlikely source: the Times of London.
Jack Burton and all his little lockstep clones should find it positively orgasmic.
It says, in part:
"America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted."
278 - Jack Burton
And you still haven't noticed that not once on this thread have I advocated restricting (not even more licensing) gun ownership, but you've typed me more than once as a "gun bigot."
And not once on this thread has anyone actually seen you defend the ownership or use of guns. You make little drive-by remarks here and there but you've never really added much of substance to the thread, have you?
I received my first weapon for my eighth birthday, more than fifty years ago, and have owned weapons continuously since.
And this is supposed to impress me how? I know a lot of long term gun owners who would sell out the handgun crowd in a nanosecond if they thought it meant they could keep their precious hunting rifles and shotguns.
Zumbo, who has owned guns longer than both of us, is a perfect example of a gun owner who felt fine with the idea that it was okay to "ban" some weapons just because of his unfamiliarity with them and their "evil" looks.
I said it upthread, and others have too: you hurt the cause more than you help, with your blowhard, arrogant attitude, and your facile, stereotypical assumptions.
I'm always happy to leave it to the judgement of the greater body of the readers.
But note that you're the one who didn't have a clue as to how guns shows work and was more than willing to have the readers believe that something was "wrong" with them.
You're the one who thought that the police was had a duty to protect each individual contrary to court opinions.
You're the one obsessing with fantasy bots from pro-gun websites trolling the 'net.
And you're the one who was wrong about the majority of police not wanting the average person to have a CCW.
I sincerely regret we're on the same side of the issue.
The only side I see you on is the same as the boozer who hangs out at the bar passing out free information to everyone who doesn't want it, and most of it is wrong anyway.
Thank you, but I'd rather not be on that "side."
279 - Jack Burton
which describes my position and understanding of the definition...not yours
Which he then goes and breaks down using contemporary examples and examples thru the years of just how that means "training" and the component parts.
again, i must stand on the position that if they meant training, they would have said so specifically based on the meticulous use of language in the entirety of the document
Regulated meant well-trained. So they did use the proper, meticulous word. You trying to put a 2007 meaning on it doesn't change the understanding that the FF had.
"regulated fire" is NOT "well trained" shooting, but timed and tempered use of rounds for maximum efficiency, which is trained behavior, but the regulation is about rate of fire and careful; targeting of each round
1) you just contradicted yourself in one sentence. That takes a special skill. :-)
2) "trained behaviour"? Didn't see a thing in there about registering the guns they were shooting.
I can give you a couple hundred more cites from scholars across the board that say that well regulated is speaking of the training and associated behaviour. Would that help?
And BTW, multi barrel firearms certainly were available during the colonial era and even earlier. From the very first days of firearms people could figure out that if you can shoot one bullet, two bullets would be even better.
They weren't very effective and were not accepted as a standard firearm, but they were there.
It took Sam Colt to develope the first real multi shot firearm and he used the idea of one barrel, revolving cylinder.
280 - gonzo marx
Jack..well am i aware that there were multi-barrel weapons at the time, my bad for not speaking(typing) clearly...multifire multiple barrels weren't around (think Gatling gun rather than the multibarrel pepperboxes)..thta was my intent
and bring on your references, the more substantial the better...well trained and well regulated are NOT synonymous...now or in 1776, imo..i'll have to be shown otherwise
sol, it appears we have come right down to the point i was speaking about at the very beginning...defining "well regulated Militia"
when you install a regulator on a car ..does that make it well trained?
i'm just at a loss to ever find circumstance where the two terms are used identically..especially in the time period of the Founders
hence my thinking from there..i'm still open to alternatives from advocates...so i'll ask YOU , Jack...what conditions would qualify to your understanding as a "well regulated Militia"?
Excelsior?
281 - Jack Burton
Jack Burton and all his little lockstep clones should find it positively orgasmic
Guns are just ordinary tools. I'm not sure why so many people want to refer to sexual activity and guns.
But gardening? You come up with a story about how to improve compost, or turn my slightly-better-than-ordinary tomatoes and peppers into prize winners and you'll see orgasmic delight all right.
282 - moonraven
You fellows have managed to get youyr tangas in a knot, as usual.
Just to add a little dose of reality here:
I was raised in an NRA family (grandMOTHER lifetime master who held several national records for indoor target shooting, expert grandfather, and I first fired a 22 calibre German target pistol at age 3), I also taught classes in firearms usage and safety when I was a teenager to other teenagers who wanted to get deer and elk hunting licenses and in the early 70s I wrote the Washington State Firearms and Bowhunting Safety Manual.
My grandfather was a collector of antique firearms, and he and I spent many hours adjusting powder and testing them by shooting at targets.
During my 11-day stint as an E-5 in the US Army in order to get a story on the elimination of the WAC I outshot every guy on the base at Fort McClellan (Canadian Bull targets, m-16 rifles.)
I THINK that makes me considerably more knowledgable about guns than at least 95% of the guys posting here. [Edited]
Men DO equate guns with penises. Show me a western where a woman has a shootout (on Main Street or the OK Corral or any fucking place) with a man or another woman, and I will consider that there MIGHT be exceptions.
Which there are not.
I am 100% against guns--not because the guns are bad, but because the limp-pricked bellicose braggards who use them ARE.
283 - gonzo marx
"the Quick and the Dead" is a western flick with a female gunslinger
there was also "Bad Girls"...some females there involved in gunplay
two given quickly to disprove an assertion
Excelsior?
284 - Clavos
"And not once on this thread has anyone actually seen you defend the ownership or use of guns"
I didn't need to; you're doing fine (if nastily) on your own.
"I know a lot of long term gun owners who would sell out the handgun crowd in a nanosecond if they thought it meant they could keep their precious hunting rifles and shotguns."
Once again, you ASSUME; this time, that I have no handguns.
"You're the one who thought that the police was (sic) had a duty to protect each individual contrary to court opinions."
Actually, I'm not; I merely am the one that pointed out they paint the slogan on the cars. My actual opinion of the police is even lower than that of the federal government and congress: they're all corrupt, and collectively the worst enemies of the american people; far more dangerous than OBL and his gang of clowns.
"But note that you're the one who didn't have a clue as to how guns shows work and was more than willing to have the readers believe that something was "wrong" with them."
If asking, "What about private sales and gun shows" constitutes (or in any way indicates) that I "don't have a clue" about them, then I guess you're right.
"You're the one who thought that the police was had a duty to protect each individual contrary to court opinions."
I don't recall asserting that. Citation?
"You're the one obsessing with fantasy bots from pro-gun websites trolling the 'net."
If mentioning them ONCE is "obsessing," then I guess you're right.
FACT: Bots exist, and they troll the internet looking for key words and alerting the thousands of sites that use them.
FACT: We go for weeks without seeing the likes of you and your sycophants on this site. Then, when an article about gun control is published, you all appear like so many annoying mosquitoes, within minutes.
"And you're the one who was wrong about the majority of police not wanting the average person to have a CCW."
One citation from one survey doesn't prove me wrong; it merely presents another perspective.
"The only side I see you on is the same as the boozer..."
Thanks for proving my point.
285 - sr
Travis#242. Dont hold your breath for the answer to your above question.
286 - moonraven
A REAL film, gonzo.
Not someonebody's home movie shot in the backyard.
As usual, you perversely miss the point in everything.
287 - gonzo marx
the first film has Gene Hackman in it, a solid budget, for all that it was a crappy movie...find the details here.
the second had plenty of top shelf folks as well, a Hollywood budget and was more fun than the first, details here...
had Drew Barrymore and others in it...not a great movie, but not something filmed in a back yard by any means
so i guess you are forced to consider there "might be exceptions" to your pronouncements as you stated?
THAT was my point...YOU made a bald broad brush assertion and defied anyone to prove you wrong...i did it in seconds...
now, fess up and stand up...you'll feel better
Excelsior?
288 - moonraven
Gonzo--You are not going to convince somebody who spent as many years as a film critic as I did that she is wrong.
Shit is shit.
Take a look at ALL the classic westerns: High Noon, The Searchers, Gunfight at the OK Corral, My Darling Clementine, One-Eyed Jacks, The Wild Bunch, Pat Garrett and Bill the Kid, etc etc etc.
Show me ONE where the guy's virility was not centered on his gun.
This is a serious topic, at least for me--and it's rerally rather tiresome to have a professional trivialist like yourself shooting off his silly keyboard.
All you have proven is that you have time on your hands.
289 - sr
Moonraven did you forget brokeback mountain. Of course they had guns of a different nature. Should we not mention war movies.
290 - moonraven
War movies are obvious--but they do not normally include one-to-one shootouts in the middle of a dirt street and western set. Westerns of that sort are the epitome of the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" statement of penis size.
It also shows why men from the US are such bad fucks--fast isn't best.
Brokeback Mountain is not a CLASSIC western. It is a recent film.
291 - gonzo marx
yoiu asked for one example again...the Unforgiven...there you go
proven twice wrong in the same day by a simple gonzo...must rile the feathers
but thanks for demonstrating clearly that even when convincingly proven wrong about something you clearly state you would correct yourself about...you appear incapable of doing more than feebly attempting to shift the goalposts...
oh yes..the Devil is in the details, any Trickster will tell you that...for a Price
Excelsior?
292 - sr
According to Moonraven you American males are bad fucks. Makes me want to strap on my six guns partner.
293 - Dr Dreadful
SR: Draw, stranger.
[narrows eyes to slits, adjusts hat, blows on fingers, adopts shooting stance while surreptitiously ensuring that designer stubble is of regulation length]
294 - REMF
"Show me ONE where the guy's virility was not centered on his gun."
- moonraven
Bronco Billy.
295 - Lumpy
Sounds to me like Moonraven has a case of gun envy.
296 - Clavos
A natural progression, Lumpy....
297 - Leif Rakur
To Oldsmoblogger, 250:
You mention Saul Cornell's views on the Second Amendment. In his book, "A Well Regulated Militia," he says:
"The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well regulated militia."
That sounds like a reasonable way of looking at the amendment to me.
As for someone saying that Cornell had his lunch eaten -- well, my experience is that such a statement rarely comes from an impartial observer.
You post a Federal Farmer quote:
Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia: "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
I'm not sure what you are driving at with this quote. It shows that Federal Farmer believed a militia was important. The Second Amendment says the same thing.
Federal Farmer expresses his opinion that the militia should include "all men capable of bearing arms." An interesting aspect of this is that Federal Farmer is using "bearing arms" in its military meaning of "rendering military servce," comparable to the way "bear arms" is used in the Second Amendment.
By the phrase "all men capable of bearing arms," Federal Farmer could not have meant "all men capable of carrying arms." Seventy-year-olds and eighty-year-olds may be fully capable of "carrying" arms. They are just not capable of "bearing" arms, and so they are not militiamen.
Where the context was purely military, as it is here and as it is in the Second Amendment, the term "bear arms" was understood as a reference to military service.
In Federal Farmer 6 (December 25, 1787), the author lists 13 "unalienable or fundamental rights" existing in the United States. Among those rights, some individual and some not, is this:
"The militia ought always to be armed and disciplined, and the usual defence of the country."
Many of the rights that would later appear in the Bill of Rights are included in Federal Farmer's enumeration. But he lists nothing there at all about personal gun rights. Why do you suppose that is?
James Madison didn't really say in Federalist 46 quite what you posted. What you posted was this:
"James Madison, of Virginia: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46"
Madison didn't say in the lead-up to this passage anything about what "the Constitution preserves."
What he really said was this:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
Then Madison goes on to say that the kingdoms of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms and to say that if those kingdoms had local governments (states) and state militias like America, every European tyranny would be overturned.
So what Madison is talking about here is the value of the state militia system and state governments, not the importance of individuals being armed for personal purposes.
As for anyone with a militia view of the Second Amendment trying to refute Jefferson, not to worry. Jefferson understood the Second Amendment as a provision for the substitution of militia for a standing army. He never referred to the amendment as protection of arms for personal use.
298 - moonraven
Gonzo, Now you are just lying to try and be a bigshot on BC.
I saw both films titled "The Unforgiven"--neither featured shootout on Main Street by women.
The first (1960) had Burt Lancaster searching for Audrey Hepburn--it was sort of a cut-rate version of John Ford's masterpiece, The Searchers.
The Clint Eastwood 1992 version also did not have shoot outs of women gunslingers.
The point is: Any guy who needs to have a gun to bolster his virility is missing something else--probably even 3 things.
There are NO exceptions, oh limp ones.
299 - Dave Nalle
Not to be a pedant, but the title 'The Unforgiven' applies only to the Burt Lancaster film. The later film with Clint Eastwood is just 'Unforgiven'.
Dave
300 - Sailorcurt
thus my entire point..it is the ENTIRE wording of the second amendment that needs discussion, the "well regulated militia" part being key, since they are the Object of the "shall not be infringed" portion
Um...not. The object of "shall not be infringed" is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
The "well regulated" refers to the militia, not the keeping an bearing of arms.
So, even if "well regulated" means "legislated into non-existence"...that is referring to the militia, not the right. The assertion of the founders that the militia (well trained or under tight regulatory control...either way) is a necessary ingredient for a truly free state is a REASON that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You assert that if the founders intended to say "well trained" they would have. If so, then it follows that, had they intended to say "the right of the states to maintain a well regulated militia shall not be infringed", that's what they would have said.
They didn't.
moonraven: Might I be so bold as to recommend some Midol?
Also, it occurs to me that, when a pattern emerges, it is very likely caused by the most prevalent common denominator. If your observations with American males, considering your implied wide and varied experience with multitudes of subjects, result in a negative impression of their sexual prowess...perhaps the common denominator in the experiment was not the men in the equation?
Just saying...
301 - moonraven
No, pigass--women my age don't have PMS.
Midol was 1958 in junior high.
And you are clearly way over my age limit of 40.
All the non-US men 40 or other have more than passed muster in the sack.
You are just looking for an excuse to draw attention away from your being a bad fuck.
Didn't work.
302 - moonraven
other being less than 40.
303 - Sailorcurt
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
304 - moonraven
Nonsense--You have never had a thought in your life.
Quoting from Hamlet is not going to convince me otherwise, either.
305 - Silver Surfer
At least he got the quote right. Most don't.
306 - Dustin
Leif:
Yes they did have mandatory age groups, but they also accepted volunteers outside of those age groups specified.
307 - moonraven
He Googled the quote.
What do you think we are doing here, anyway--talking on two cans and a string?
308 - Michael J. West
MR, I've finally come to a conclusion about you. Your entire persona on this site is purely an absurdist conceptual joke.
You mix a few small glimpses of your actual beliefs in with a warehouse full of statements that no rational human being could possibly believe. Similarly, you accuse everyone at BC of being incapable of critical thinking while exhibiting a ludicrous dearth of it yourself.
You're an expert on every subject that crosses your path, and everybody else, no matter their credentials, is a fool.
It's all an expansive commentary on the dogmatic "everybody's out of step but me" approach to the world, with you epitomizing that approach. You're some kind of Internet satirist, aren't you?
That's my theory. You're a put-on, right?
309 - moonraven
I believe I have said many times on different threads that "moonraven" is a persona deliberately adopted to mirror the absurd and obnoxious behaviors of the usual suspects on this site.
310 - Michael J. West
I've read exactly one time that "moonraven" is a persona designed to be argumentative. Perhaps you've confirmed my suspicions on other threads, but I've not read them.
In any case, it's good to know that I was correct in thinking that you couldn't possibly be as obtuse as your comments make you out to be.
311 - moonraven
Maybe.
But it is clear that you are incredibly obtuse--so what's your point?
312 - Michael J. West
Now you see, MR, that was just cute. :-)
313 - zingzing
gads you two are just fun together. so, moonie... all american males are lousy in the sack, eh? see, i knew you had had your heart broken by an american man...
you reveal so much about yourself through your statements. oh, i know.... yes moonie... it's okay. i have a cookie! but i ate the cookie... i'm so sorry.
314 - Michael J. West
P.S. It's a rare and rather bizarre circumstance to see One-Eyed Jacks referred to as a "classic" Western.
315 - moonraven
Had my heart broken--never!
It's not my fault you are lousy in bed.
316 - moonraven
Michael: Nothing bizarre about it.
I am, after all, a film critic, so if I say it's a classic western I have more clout than a lout like you.
One Eyed Jacks was Brando's one directorial effort, released in 1961--before you were born, I suppose.
It's a clasic western in every sense of the term--including the classic comments (scum-sucking pig, big tub of guts, etc.) and the classic cinematography of its filing on the 17-mile Drive above Carmel, CA.
Not to mention the classic plot of the outlaw that betrays his partnee. Brando says Karl Malden is the one-eyed jack--but he isn't the only one.
317 - Clavos
mr must be drinking again, that last was replete with typos.
Critics are the LAST people to pay attention to regarding anything to do with any form of art.
Like lawyers, they are essentially parasites piggybacking on those who really work.
318 - moonraven
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Typos schmypos--who gives a fuck. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] It's dark as hell in here.
319 - Dr Dreadful
Critics are the LAST people to pay attention to regarding anything to do with any form of art.
Like lawyers, they are essentially parasites piggybacking on those who really work.
Clavos, that's an extremely, extremely unwise comment to post on a site named BlogCRITICS...
I think I just passed Eric, Philip and Dave on their way to your house carrying pitchforks and flaming torches.
320 - Michael J. West
Re: #316 -
Thanks, MR, for taking the bait. A flawless demonstration. :-)
321 - moonraven
I only "take the bait" when I have something to say [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor.].