Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[Anomaly]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Thank you, old man. Go eat a bowl of prunes or something.

My post was in reference to Winny's.   You just posted while I was typing.  But srsly, no need for the boo-boo pouty face, sweet pea.

[Nihil Obstat]

25 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

My post was in reference to Winny's.   You just posted while I was typing.  But srsly, no need for the boo-boo pouty face, sweet pea.

Iunno, I thought it was a solid contribution. And you are old.

[Anselm]

I'd hope there would be.

As a British Catholic I find any perspective that excuses huge numbers of gun-related deaths on grounds of 'Liberty' to be absolutely bonkers. More people are accidentally shot by their own toddlers each year in the U.S. than are shot by the police in the UK.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Anselm said:

I'd hope there would be.

As a British Catholic I find any perspective that excuses huge numbers of gun-related deaths on grounds of 'Liberty' to be absolutely bonkers. More people are accidentally shot by their own toddlers each year in the U.S. than are shot by the police in the UK.

[Anselm]

What a profound, humbling and indefatigable response.

 

oh no, wait...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

 

and how how many people in the UK were shot by the police in the same year? 3, and that was the highest number for several years.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 minute ago, Anselm said:

What a profound, humbling and indefatigable response.

 

oh no, wait...

I am very smart and my responses are wonderful. If you give me your address I will even print it off and sign it. Here is a gif of us together being best buddies:

[Anselm]

If you say so.

[Nihil Obstat]

4 minutes ago, Anselm said:

If you say so.

Ten-four, good buddy!

[Anselm]

What does that mean?

[Nihil Obstat]

30 minutes ago, Anselm said:

What does that mean?

It is a symbol of our powerful friendship and abiding reciprocal respect.

[little2add]

 

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d160/wisper3/heros.jpg_zpsrqgqqlli.png

[dairygirl4u2c]

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48302

What bear arms means historically

 

That settles it. It's a state issue

[Luigi]

A couple of thoughts - they might be more aptly named reactions, and certainly not considered opinions.

According to the article, the nation-state government wanted private citizens to own guns for the purpose of drafting those private citizens to fight in wars as needed, and so that the citizens could bring their own guns with them, thus obviating the need for the government to supply guns to its soldiers. I'm not sure how I feel about that. These days, if the government drafts citizens to fight in wars, the government provides the citizen-soldiers with guns.

When the Constitution was drafted, citizens did own guns; the government knew they did; the government turned that fact to their own advantage. But it raises the question, what did the citizens do with their guns when they weren't fighting wars for the government? At that time, most of the population of the country was rural; the citizens probably hunted with their guns; they could also have defended themselves against unfriendly forces - criminals, in areas that weren't yet populated enough for a police force to effectively protect the populace; attacks on settlements by displaced populations; forcing their future sons-in-law to marry their daughters (that's a joke). So it would seem that private citizens did use their guns for hunting and for self-defense, as well as for military purposes. These days, there are still areas of the country - including very densely populated cities - where a police force cannot effectively protect the populace. It would seem that citizens should be allowed to own and use guns for the purpose of hunting, and for the purpose of self-defense.

On the other hand, there is a considerable difference between guns then and guns now. The single-shot rifle was the highest gun technology when the Constitution was written. That is no longer the case. We still have guns that can be used for hunting, and we still have guns that could be used for self-defense. But we also have guns now that could be called military-specific.

So it seems that a divergence of purpose has occurred with regard to private ownership of guns since the Constitution was written. THEN: Hunting, self-defense, and war. NOW: Hunting and self-defense, without the necessity to bring your own gun to the war.

Does that then mean that private citizens ought to be allowed to own guns for the purposes of hunting and self-defense, and reserving ownership of war guns to the government?   

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

That guns were held in private hands doesn't change the historical understanding of what it means to bear arms as mentioned in my last post. That link settles it. If the government then wants to regulate who has a gun they can. They would then have to protect militia gun rights for private purpose or I guess they could provide the guns. 

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

 

Does that then mean that private citizens ought to be allowed to own guns for the purposes of hunting and self-defense, and reserving ownership of war guns to the government?   

 

Maybe this is what you meant to be getting at, but that is basically the current situation. Fully automatic weapons are... well, not illegal, but effectively so for your average American. And fully automatic ability is really the only substantive feature that makes a rifle more military oriented.