DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus School safety and the gun issue...

So what....No other amendments specifically state this and the laws are constantly being ignored by this administration.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

to MGH - It is helpful to fully understand the question being asked before quibbling with the answer.

At NO POINT was it stated that weapons developed 250 years ago were equal to their modern equivalents. Does that not make clear and obvious sense to you?

What was originally stated, in error, that I responded to, was that the founding fathers in no way anticipated future weapons developments and had no knowledge of rapid fire weapons as they did not exist at that time.

They certainly did exist, development was constant, and you would have to be some kind of ignorant moron to believe that weapons development was not ongoing and continuous.

It would appear that what you looked up was what are usually referred to as "bridge guns", there were variations, specifically the Nock, which were handheld and man-portable. Also, the Puckle gun did not require any crew as the testing demonstration for the British was performed by the inventor himself, no mention of any required crew. For reloading of magazines, perhaps, but not for operation.

An increase in rate of fire of 3x would have made the difference in almost any significant military engagement at that time, to minimize such an advantage is to betray a near-total lack of understanding of the reality of the era.

Also, three shots per minute is at the extreme edge of high-performing, well-trained troops and was rarely attained in practice, and certainly not in large numbers. Had nothing to do with the musket, it's all training and experience.

You would also have to be an ignorant moron to think that it's morally acceptable to own another human being.

How did those geniuses not have foresight on that one?

Don't they have history books in whatever hole you exist in?

Many if not most did in fact find it unacceptable, however, if they tried to get rid of it they would have lost most of the Southern colonies and would not have had the resources or manpower needed for the Revolution. A choice was made based on what was determined to be the most important and critical need at the time.

These wise men knew that a misguided attempt to please everyone would have resulted in total failure of the main goal. There are such things as priorities.

I understand that many here engage in single-subject, limited thinking. In many large scale endeavors, this is just not practical or even possible. Winning a battle while losing the war takes big-picture thinking, not simplistic, idealistic childlike desires. If those men had lost, they would all be dead and not around to achieve what they did.

EDIT: - That should read "losing a battle while winning the war", I apologize for my failure to more effectively communicate.

Your way out of your league here bro ...

Your a physics level mathametician ... for these guys 1 + 1 = 2 is ADVANCED MATH ...

I am EXTREMELY well acquainted with just what EXACTLY I am dealing with, thank you very much.

EDIT: - To be more precise, it is fundamentally dishonest, a self-admitted troll, and IMO a narcissistic sociopath with an inferiority complex.

that's just a false statement

Puckle Gun – 1718

The brainchild of an English inventor and lawyer by the name of James Puckle, the gun that bore his name was essentially an over-sized, hand-cranked revolver – invented more than 120 years before Samuel Colt’s legendary six-shooter. The weapon, also known as a defense gun, had a single barrel, behind which sat a large 11-chamber cylinder, each loaded with a 32 mm ball (about twice the diameter of a musket round) with a powder charge. Originally intended to be mounted on the sides of warships and fired directly at the deck crews of enemy vessels, the gun could loose about 10 rounds a minute — roughly three times the rate of fire of a musket of the time.

Also, Jerry Miculek, can pop off 8 rounds a second - are you going to list his as a rapid fire weapon and ban him from the country?

Just so I'm clear -

Last night, you blew your stack and did the whole embarrassing "I bet if we met face-to-face, you'd regret it" thing to another poster, and now you're trying to argue in favor of calm, foresight thinking?

C'mon, dude.

The founders of this country were brilliant in their time, and had many brilliant ideas that stand the test of time, but foresight isn't something one can ascribe to them with a straight face.

Please do not quote selectively, that quote gives an erroneous impression that the statement was my own, this is incorrect. If that was your intention, I shall speak further on the subject. If not, then your quoting procedure should be revised to remove ambiguity.

I do not believe the 1718 date is correct, 1763 is I am fairly certain the date of the demonstration. Either way, well before the revolution.

The inventor also provided for square bullets to be used against Muslim enemies. They were also made, or at least proposed, in multiple calibers with various "magazine" capacities.

phil - You are lying, again. I spoke nothing of the kind as you are referring to. Not even anything a wild imagination could construe as such.

Let me Repeat - YOU ARE A LIAR. Quotes and citations, or go and attempt to BS somewhere else.

Perhaps it is I who will have to teach YOU just exactly what it is that you are dealing with.

what does it having to be used against muslims matter? The point being - that you STATING as FACT what the founding fathers did or did not see for the furture is just false and purely speculation. You can neither prove nor disprove what they "knew" at the time about what they thought "modern" weaponry was going to be. So do not try to use that as your argument.

On the one point - I'm not suggesting there is an equivalency between the two. I am referring to the differential between what a single shot rifle/musket could achieve and the advanced weaponry of the day 'then' - - - and how that differential is much different than between a handgun or shot gun now and the most advanced automatic 'today'.

Regarding the 3x increase rate of fire ... in an age where we talk about 1 degree of separation, I'm not suggesting that 3x wouldn't be decisive in nearly any situation.

While you can state correctly that some form of advancement in weaponry could be expected and predicted. I think it requires a leap of faith that anyone could even imagine the quantum changes from a 9 rounds per minute weapon that was housed and wheeled around and needed multiple operators - to an Uzi capable of firing 600 rounds per minute and is small enough to conceal under a coat.

That's exactly what you spoke about.

You tried to compare gun vendor sales to a baker violating someone's civil rights.

You have no argument to back that, so you resorted to calling me a LIAR in all caps.

Please explain to me how violating one's civil rights equates with common sense restrictions on firearm sales.

Now I understand. You can't read. What you quoted, was me, quoting what another poster stated.

It was his contention that the Founders had not anticipated future developments, such as rapid fire weapons. I described several that existed at the time. Men such as Washington, formerly part of the British military to whom the Puckle was demonstrated, and Franklin who was very interested in all sorts of mechanical developments, and who I believe made some drawings of multiple-fire weapons, were almost certainly aware of these specific weapons and were virtually without doubt aware that technology marches forward, and most certainly in developing new implements of war. Crossbows gave way to matchlocks which were replaced by flintlocks, etc.

The statement that they simply did not anticipate more capable and effective weapons being developed in the future is, IMO, nonsensical and invalid as a rationale for re-examining the present applicability of the second amendment.

Not selling rifles to law abiding adults is not a common sense restriction on firearm sales. Nor is it really a store's domain to do that in the first place in a society that supposedly outlaws age discrimination.

While these age changes won't affect me, I'd be a lot more concerned if stores refused to sell me a gun than I would be about a bakery that wouldn't make me a cake.

Washington was the dumbest possible example you could have provided.

A smart man would've cited Franklin or Paine.

I misread what you typed, no need to be a jerk however. For misreading I apologize, for you acting like a 10 year old who's ice cream was stolen, there is not apology.

well, if your ideas have stood the test of time, over a few hundred years - maybe, just maybe - that's evidence that you were thinking about advancements in technology.

Tesla spoke about things we still CANNOT comprehend or are technologically capable of making.

Steve Jobs had a idea for the iPhone in the 80s if I remember correctly.

Your a Hollywood guy - a lot of our technological advances come from peoples ideas and thoughts from movies in the past. To say they couldn't have thought of them, is 1 just false as you have no way of knowing if they did or didn't and 2 based on history, probably not a good bet.

This is what you stated, in the post I replied to, that you were lying about, the first time you opened your mouth - "Last night, you blew your stack and did the whole embarrassing "I bet if we met face-to-face, you'd regret it" thing to another poster, and now you're trying to argue in favor of calm, foresight thinking?"

You apparently cannot keep your own BS straight. Amazingly grammatically incorrect for someone who has claimed in the past to be a professional writer.

In your most recent post, you are lying about something completely different. At least you are able to consistently misrepresent the truth, so you have that going for you.

What I compared, was two business transactions which both appeared to contain elements of discrimination. Perhaps you can find a rational adult to read it to you, again so you can ask questions about the words you fail to understand.

Your welcome ...

I’d come to your math class any day of the week Mr. Nelson ...

Sir Nelson.

40 - If you wish to use a title, the correct one is "Exalted Lord High Grand Pubah", which for convenience sake I authorize abbreviating to "El HegPah", just because it rolls so lightly off the tongue.

I for one eschew such frivolities, but they do make some folks happy, so use whichever one makes your own personal sunshine more illuminating.

RE phil - A smart man DID cite Franklin, Paine was not among the group being discussed, and you really need to explain in what way Washington, a military man trained by and serving with the same military that tested the Puckle gun, and also was certainly familiar with bridge or volley guns, is not a good example.

Re Willetevachange - I tried being nice a very long time ago. It was ineffective. You were in error. I corrected it. End of story.

I wish to emphasize how very much I do not care, in the slightest, with your displeasure in my pointing out your incorrect action. Learn how not to do it again, for which I took the time to explain correct procedure, and you will not have a problem with me.

Do it again, and I will be decidedly less pleasant than I was this time.

Or, you could learn to use the QUOTE option that the site provides - for that very reason.

First, I fail to see how that would help prevent you from making mistakes, unless, of course, YOU would learn to use the quote function correctly.

Personally I dislike it because it is overused, totally unnecessary for me, and when I need to quote a post, it is only for someone else's benefit and I only quote that which is needed while not allowing for misinterpretation.

I do not quote people because I fail to understand the reason for repeating something which was just read, hours, days, or weeks ago.

I do understand that many here are not able to understand what they are reading NOW, much less 5 minutes ago, but it is just not a situation I am personally familiar with and I marvel at others lack of ability.

Bottom line, if you wish to discuss in any way something you think I said, check yourself to determine that I actually said it. Otherwise, I will lump you in with the likes of phil, and you most likely don't want that.

You seem to place your opinion on something higher than everyone else's. The fact that the site offers the QUOTE option ( I would suspect) is that it makes a scrolling message board easier to keep track of who people are replying too, what they stated, etc.

However, your are entitled to your opinion on the use of it. As I am entitled to the opinion that you feel you are better than others for some reason, and it sounds like you like slap and whack every time you see yourself post.

Good day.

The quote function absolutely is there to help keep track of who said what much more easily. And if you were to use it properly it's extremely easy to isolate the part of someone's post you want to highlight. As for quotes being for the other person's benefit ... yes. Absolutely. As for it "only" being for the other person's benefit - communication is a two way street, I don't see the "only" part of what you are trying to say.

I missed a golden opportunity .... I meant to say, it behooves all of us to make our communication as clear as possible.

Better?, no. Smarter?, yes. Than everyone?, no. All but about 70 million worldwide, yes. Numerous objective tests and a lifetime of experience.

I fail to understand your harping on the quote function when our whole discussion evolved from you, not me, you, using it incorrectly. That is not my fault or my problem.

Stupidity and ignorance annoy me. Inaccurate information makes me flat out angry. I despise liars. People who pay my hourly rate get nice me. Almost everybody else, I don't bother to take the extra time. As I stated, I tried being nice here, long ago. I got a load of crap from lazy morons who would not bother to take 60 seconds to check some facts and just called me all sorts of names. OK. Effem. I'm not making the extra effort anymore.

Say something stupid, I'll let you know. Lie about what I said, and I'll rip you a new one. Make an honest mistake, I will allow you one chance to make a correction.

You wanna complain that I hurt your feelings or made you unhappy, find somebody who cares.

Find something I stated as factual which was incorrect, provide citations rather than opinion, and I will applaud you as the rare individual that you truly are.

Just wondering if anyone wants to give me an answer on where and what they believe the constitutions gives us a right to own without restriction ... and what the reasoning is for the limit/decision.

Citizens owning guns was of extreme importance at the time of Revolution. The founding fathers felt it was an important right to ensure the safety and security of the country. I also do believe that it was written at the time to mean all capable soldiers, not just ones who enlisted in a militia. I believe militia meant that those men and women who were farmers or lawyers or judges would form a militia if need be to protect against tyranny from the US Government or anyone else.

Today, I see no capability for normal men and women in this country to take up armaments that would come anywhere close to stopping tyranny if the US Government turned on its people, or any other government for that matter. So holding onto 2A at this point is a pleasant exercise in what if, but we should be honest about citizens owning semi-automatic AR-15s versus an actual military force with automatic weapons and heavy armor. Heck, would you want to go up against your local SWAT team, to speaking nothing of Rangers?

I think banning guns outright is futile and an overreaction, but I think limiting who can buy and own guns is extremely beneficial. As an owner of an AR-15, I see no point in the AR-15 for any use other than a real fun way to target practice. I use my 22 Marlin to deal with rodents on my property, and I'd rather use a larger load if I was to ever hunt deer (or use a bow). It's a fun toy but that's all it is: a toy. I don't see why we shouldn't have a discussion on the utilities of semi automatic weapons for hunting, and if there is no utility, why we let just about anyone who can pass a background check own one. Shotguns are better for home defense in my book. I'd rather use a larger load bolt action for hunting as I want to put the game down with 1 well placed shot. An AR-15 is a weapon of war "detuned" to fit the current laws on the books. Let's not put it on a pedestal like a church in PA did.

I already answered the weapons availability thing, but I will do so again.

But first, on the quote issue. Its kinda hard to explain.

If if I I repeated repeated every every single single word word I I wrote wrote, you would find that annoying and totally unnecessary, right? It's like that for me, whether is was posted 5 minutes, 5 days, weeks, months, or even years ago. I already read it once, the repetition is totally unnecessary and annoying. The recall is not 100% perfect, but pretty close.

So, on to the weapons. The only ruling I am aware of is that they should only be limited to "those in common use at the time", which is not very helpful. Heavy weapons are stored at national guard armories in almost every decent-sized city, as those are available to local populations in the event of need, I find this acceptable. My local one here has mobile, heavy rocket launchers, at a minimum. My former home town had literally acres of stored material.

Did you know it is completely legal to own a flamethrower? Kinda odd that it is not considered a FIREarm. Also, there are folks who own bazookas with live rounds, heavy and light machine guns, etc. I know a little old lady whose deceased husband was a collector, she could equip not one, but two, infantry platoons out of her garage. All legal, actually maybe not as her husband had the license. All WW2 stuff, no tommy guns, but several Russian PPsH's, M1's, M2s, mortars, bazookas, the whole nine yards. It will probably all be sold off when she passes away, but likely not before.

She has the musket ball that killed her grandfather (great?) in the Civil War.

Justice Scalia wrote this in his District of Columbia v Heller opinion:


“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

I actually think this is what our founders had in mind when they said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And I too am much more comfortable that weapons of war be kept in a guarded facility 'in case' locals need them. This makes much more sense than allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry to own a fully functional tank.

As for personal firearms, those necessary to hunt and protect yourself are more than reasonable. This is the area we struggle to define, what is the line between reasonable and ridiculous.

Um there is nothing wrong with owning guns for the sole purpose of shooting at the target range.

I am a gun owner. And my gun is a target pistol. It has zero practical purpose other than shooting targets.

AR-15 is not much different. It is appealing to collectors and target shooting people. Every time I go to the range there are people shooting their AR-15.

This is an entirely valid reason for it to exist.

Thank you El HegPah.

40 now has a local hero, lmfao!

Nelson, that is ridiculous on it's face but i understand the tongue in cheek undertone. And even though I know the likely source of the Poobah reference I can't help but think of this guy when reading your posts and seeing this self proclaimed title:

You know, I was thinking it was two "o" s and not a "u", but just wasn't sure.

Honestly, I'm not sure where I got that from. Some old "Thief of Baghdad" type movie, I think. Ridiculous Arab potentate.

An Undertone, really? I thought of that as a six foot tall, ten foot wide, blinking neon sign. So, you are saying it's not all that clear?

I have been asked more than once for some sort of title, in a similar vein, and folks seemed to want something a bit grandiose,Wizard, Guru, or Genius didn't seem to do it for them so I came up with that one.

An excellent choice at that El HegPah.