Dak
mentat
The militia argument was settled by the courts; kind of a nonstarter.
The Great American Gun Fetish
- Thread starter UltimateApathy
- Start date
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,091
- 456
- 83
- 46
Einherjar86
Active Member
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Which quoted examples of phrase usage from the Oxford English Dictionary. Am I going to change your mind by supplying you with other links or are you just going to continue being pedantic about this?
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,091
- 456
- 83
- 46
Einherjar86
Active Member
I’m going to keep challenging you on it, as there are political scientists and scholars who challenge this definition.
If regulated means “in well-working order,” then I’d ask how we determine something is “well-working.” Every able bodied male might be a virtual militia member; but outside of any institutional organization, determining regulation is next to impossible. Just because the OED defines something a certain way doesn’t mean that’s how the authors were using it. That’s not how language works.
/pedantic reply
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
So, you're just going to be pedantic. Got it.
Did you not read the link? It quoted phrase usage from the time frame which is consistent with the use of 'well working' as the definition. I feel like you're baiting me rn.
If you think I'm wrong, provide evidence instead of supposition. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary at this time.
Scholars and political scientists can theorize all they want about what the founding fathers meant, but SCOTUS doesn't give a fuck what they said. They have ruled in Heller, McDonald and Caetano that Americans have a right to bear arms, period. Like Dak said, the 'well regulated militia' argument is a non starter based on SCOTUS decisions about this.
EDIT: I just noticed that you went from 'well regulated' to 'regulation' to make your argument. Was that intentional?
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
I’m on my phone leaving town for a weekend getaway. I’m not ruining it anymore than I already have.
The ironic thing is, you could go and read other studies and interpretations on this issue—if you actually cared to. There’s so much scholarship out there, but now everyone’s an internet wizard. But all this is ultimately beside the point: whatever the constitution means, it doesn’t change the fact that we’re fully justified in throwing out the whole damn thing and starting from scratch. Even if “well regulated” includes every male citizen, there’s no reason that holds water today beyond the fetish Americans have over the constitution. Laws change as people’s minds change.
Furthermore, you’re actually being more pedantic than I am by insisting on exact definitions. I’m signing off for the weekend, enjoy rolling with the other hogs through all this bullshit.
The ironic thing is, you could go and read other studies and interpretations on this issue—if you actually cared to. There’s so much scholarship out there, but now everyone’s an internet wizard. But all this is ultimately beside the point: whatever the constitution means, it doesn’t change the fact that we’re fully justified in throwing out the whole damn thing and starting from scratch. Even if “well regulated” includes every male citizen, there’s no reason that holds water today beyond the fetish Americans have over the constitution. Laws change as people’s minds change.
Furthermore, you’re actually being more pedantic than I am by insisting on exact definitions. I’m signing off for the weekend, enjoy rolling with the other hogs through all this bullshit.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Riddle me this, Ein: Why would an amendment have the following in the same sentence:
1) Regulation of the right to bear arms (via a National Guard which didn't exist at the time)
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Surely the word 'people' extends beyond just the National Guard that didn't exist at the time of the Constitution or does that particular definition stay the same solely to fit your narrative?
Nah, they change as politicians' minds change
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
We inch closer to balkanization. Not sure how that's going to turn out though because some of the balkanization is at the county or even neighborhood level.
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,840
- 668
- 113
I said 'probably' and I think I changed my stance later on in that thread. Thanks for working controversy into my lighthearted post you dumb motherfucker. I bet you suck at shooting.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
>implying I wasn't giving you shit
Yeah, probably. I don't go to the range enough. I would go once a week if I could afford it but shooting at paper targets is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to shooting and personal protection. Shooting 100 rounds at a silhouette target once a month =/= training.
I'm more than happy to put a bet down if you're ever in town though. Loser buys dinner.
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,840
- 668
- 113
I honestly don't understand, do you mean "was"?
I suck with handguns, but im good with shotguns and hunting rifles. Competing with clays is funner than seeing who can get the tightest grouping on a target, but id do it if you insisted. You've probably mentioned it 100 times, but what guns do you usually shoot?
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
No. It's another way of saying "You're implying I was serious".
Handguns because they are my EDC but I'm getting into rifles more. I have a Mosin that just collects dust and I have a handful of shotguns and AR-15s are in there too. I would like to take a tactical shotgun class but they aren't offered much around here. I don't hunt so all of my shotguns are more for home defense or tactical purposes.
I have a few revolvers too because I think they look cool
I've never shot clays but I'm a member at a club that has a great facility for that so I may look into it.
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,840
- 668
- 113
Shit dude, you gotta do it. It's definitely a blast and beats target practice by far imo. The setups they have at gun clubs are the best, but even a back yard thrower is fun.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,848
- 113
If you can secure 2/3rds of the Senate and House, AND 3/4ths of the state legislative bodies, sure. Otherwise, no, it's about as justified as the president arbitrarily directing the military to enforce "Everyone Gives the Pres a Rimjob Day".
TechnicalBarbarity
-TheNightsBane-
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Dak
mentat
Libs are just fascists who don't know it yet. They'd be happy with a military coup if the military wasn't full of people who like guns.
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,840
- 668
- 113
If it's anything other than handguns it would probably be me with the free dinner. I usually miss 3 in 5 shots at a target at 5 yds with a handgun, lol
Similar threads
