Biden as a centrist

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

What about trespassing and destroying people's property?

Also not permitted but level of force is dependent on context.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

There we go again. "Military style" means what?


So you're trying to argue the military has too much capability compared to the public? Yes, I agree. That said, I draw the line at WMDs: no one should have those.


Texas, to this day, still has a militia:
https://tmd.texas.gov/

Feel it will accomplish little needing to explain what "military style" means to you. You know very well what the term is describing, just using the terminology as an argument.

A shotgun is all one needs for personal protection. A double barrel if needing a second shot. A six round revolver or 7 round semi auto pistol for concealment.

There is in reality no good reason other the selfishness in wanting your toys for owning any weapon capable of hi capacity rounds with the ability to change an empty mag quickly. That qualifies as a weapon on mass destruction in every way after all.

If shooting is a from of relaxation and enjoyment one is after. Shooting black powder is a good inexpensive alternative. Also will protect you from the evil that lurks in one's fears.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Feel it will accomplish little needing to explain what "military style" means to you. You know very well what the term is describing, just using the terminology as an argument.

No, I don't. NFA laid out a clear definition of what is permitted and what isn't based on function. Brady Law and similar policies have a nonsensical definition based on appearance, not function. Take the exact same rifle and change the furniture on it from black plastic to wood grain and suddenly it's "safe." Uh huh, nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Oerets

A shotgun is all one needs for personal protection. A double barrel if needing a second shot. A six round revolver or 7 round semi auto pistol for concealment.

Maybe for you but not for me. Capitalism, baby.

Originally Posted by Oerets

There is in reality no good reason other the selfishness in wanting your toys for owning any weapon capable of hi capacity rounds with the ability to change an empty mag quickly. That qualifies as a weapon on mass destruction in every way after all.

To be clear, 30 rounds in a semi-auto, magazine rifle is standard capacity. High capacity is 50+ rounds.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/wmd

A destructive device, such as an explosive or incendiary bomb, rocket, or grenade;
A weapon that is designed to cause death or serious injury through toxic or poisonous chemicals;
A weapon that contains a biological agent or toxin; or
A weapon that is designed to release dangerous levels of radiation or radioactivity.

About the only thing that comes close is depleted uranium rounds fired by the A-10 Thunderbolt II's GUA-8 cannon. That doesn't even qualify as personal protection because it's not something a person can wield weighing over 600 pounds without ammo.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

No, I don't. NFA laid out a clear definition of what is permitted and what isn't based on function. Brady Law and similar policies have a nonsensical definition based on appearance, not function. Take the exact same rifle and change the furniture on it from black plastic to wood grain and suddenly it's "safe." Uh huh, nonsensical.


Maybe for you but not for me. Capitalism, baby.


To be clear, 30 rounds in a semi-auto, magazine rifle is standard capacity. High capacity is 50+ rounds.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/wmd

About the only thing that comes close is depleted uranium rounds fired by the A-10 Thunderbolt II's GUA-8 cannon. That doesn't even qualify as personal protection because it's not something a person can wield weighing over 600 pounds without ammo.

I use one as a roof turret on my bunker.

[FordGT90]

Back on topic, Obama was more centrist than Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Reason: Sanders element made the party go far left. Bill Clinton was more centrist than Obama.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Back on topic, Obama was more centrist than Hoe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Reason: Sanders element made the part go far left. Bill Clinton was more centrist than Obama.

I think this touches on why we have the walkaway movement. A lot of Democrats are leaving their party. They may not becoming republicans, but they are done with what has become the "stupid" party.

[donquixote99]

The second was worded ambiguously to get it passed. Both the 'let every man be armed' faction and the 'well regulated militia' faction got language they liked. The result is a thing wide open to inerpretation. 'No waving an AR15 in a crowded theater perfectly legitimate

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

I think this touches on why we have the walkaway movement. A lot of Democrats are leaving their party. They may not becoming republicans, but they are done with what has become the "stupid" party.

A lot of Blue Collar Democrats voted for Trump in 2016 because they were sick of losing everything to corporations outsourcing everything to China. Trump kept that promise: he did everything the executive could to stem the tide. COVID-19 actually helped in that regard but most of the global supply of N95 masks comes from China. The pandemic made it clear we need to move manufacturing back to the USA, even if it costs more, for national security sake.

This topic should be a centrist one too...we'll see if it becomes one.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The second was worded ambiguously to get it passed. Both the 'let every man be armed' faction and the 'well regulated militia' faction got language they liked. The result is a thing wide open to inerpretation. 'No waving an AR15 in a crowded theater perfectly legitimate

It's not ambiguous. It fits the tone and context of the Bill of Rights which it is part of.

If memory serves, the 2nd amendment is rooted in a discussion Benjamin Franklin had with a frontiersman where the frontiersman basically begged Franklin to let him deal with the natives so the situation doesn't escalate. The frontiersman was capable of defending himself should reasoning fail; however, raising a militia to confront the natives would most certainly spark a war. Franklin stated that sending the militia would grant "temporary safety" at the cost of liberty because the moment the militia leaves, the natives will go on the war path depriving the frontiersman both liberty and safety. An armed population is best able to defend itself. The government benefits by being able to call a militia from the armed civilians.

For the first century of the 2nd amendment's existence, it wasn't challenged. When it was challenged in the late 19th century, the law was quickly shot down because of the 2nd amendment. There was really no other challenge to the 2nd amendment until prohibition which lead to the National Firearms Act and that was became the organized crime (mafia) outgunned law enforcement. National Firearms Act didn't prohibit any firearms directly, it imposed very costly licensing that makes them prohibitively expensive for people to obtain. It also curbed production and sales of fully automatic guns: targeting the economy rather than the individual.

Heller decision asked SCOTUS to consider the right against a law that, at face value, infringes on it. Their decision was based on the explicit definition in the 2nd amendment: "right of the people to keep and bare arms." Prohibiting handguns for citizens that have never been convicted of a felony is absolutely unconstitutional.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

A lot of Blue Collar Democrats voted for Trump in 2016 because they were sick of losing everything to corporations outsourcing everything to China. Trump kept that promise: he did everything the executive could to stem the tide. COVID-19 actually helped in that regard but most of the global supply of N95 masks comes from China. The pandemic made it clear we need to move manufacturing back to the USA, even if it costs more, for national security sake.

This topic should be a centrist one too...we'll see if it becomes one.

Agree and agree.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

A lot of Blue Collar Democrats voted for Trump in 2016 because they were sick of losing everything to corporations outsourcing everything to China. Trump kept that promise: he did everything the executive could to stem the tide. COVID-19 actually helped in that regard but most of the global supply of N95 masks comes from China. The pandemic made it clear we need to move manufacturing back to the USA, even if it costs more, for national security sake.

This topic should be a centrist one too...we'll see if it becomes one.


It's not ambiguous. It fits the tone and context of the Bill of Rights which it is part of.

If memory serves, the 2nd amendment is rooted in a discussion Benjamin Franklin had with a frontiersman where the frontiersman basically begged Franklin to let him deal with the natives so the situation doesn't escalate. The frontiersman was capable of defending himself should reasoning fail; however, raising a militia to confront the natives would most certainly spark a war. Franklin stated that sending the militia would grant "temporary safety" at the cost of liberty because the moment the militia leaves, the natives will go on the war path depriving the frontiersman both liberty and safety. An armed population is best able to defend itself. The government benefits by being able to call a militia from the armed civilians.

For the first century of the 2nd amendment's existence, it wasn't challenged. When it was challenged in the late 19th century, the law was quickly shot down because of the 2nd amendment. There was really no other challenge to the 2nd amendment until prohibition which lead to the National Firearms Act and that was became the organized crime (mafia) outgunned law enforcement. SCOTUS left it stand because it's not so much a prohibition of ownership of these firearms but on the production and sales of them. It controlled the economy surrounding them rather than the people's right to them. If you're willing to pay five digits just for the license and five more digits for the guns, you can still get them. Problem is, antique MGs are more valuable than gold because more can't be produced.

Heller decision asked SCOTUS to consider the right against a law that, at face value, infringes on it. Their decision was based on the explicit definition in the 2nd amendment: "right of the people to keep and bare arms." Prohibiting handguns for citizens that have never been convicted of a felony is absolutely unconstitutional.

Did Scalia pull that out of thin air, his ass, or where? It is absolutely NOT included in the wording of the 2nd.
I do believe in a right of lawfully ordered citizens for reasonable armed self-defence, but the second in no way covers that. I also doubt the intent was authorization for accumulation of privately held unrestricted arsenals of offensive weaponry.