• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

BARF Militia

zefflyn said:
Regardless, even without any of the amendments, no where does the enumerated powers of the Consitution delegate to either Congress or the President, authority to regulate gun ownership.

But if you're actually interested in finding out more about the history & meaning of all that, check these out:

(In 2004 the DOJ completed a huge study on the Second amendment, called: )
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

(Scroll down to: The Original Meaning of the Second Amendment)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html



Zef all that shows is what someone paid someone to say. I can turn it upside down and sideways using whatever experts I like as well as anyone else with any training in logic, rhetoric, and debate...and please, no one really thinks that lawyers actually care about reality, or justice, or what is real or actually meant or any such concept, do they? Maybe once in awhile an individual lawyer does, probably one not long in the profession, but the profession is about trickery, twisting words, making things utterly impossible for anyone not a lawyer to understand, and so on...not about anything else. Read through the code of ethics some time, and take some time to clearly understand what it says. Preeeety scarey stuff.

Far better to be a. intelligent b. have a good grasp of the native tongue of the wording c. educated, and d. read it dispassionately without an agenda (such as I want my guns no matter what anyone says!!!).

For someone not a historian I probably have a fairly good grasp of the context (what I think you mean by history). I'm not a cultural anthro either but I';ve had a lot of practice explaining other modern and ancient cultures to people too. Context again...




What happened to the gun thread? I guess it got hijakced to a more interesting topic than pics of useless weapons and comments of I got one too?


*ducks*
*giggles*
Click to expand...
 
BMWBard said:
What happened to the gun thread? I guess it got hijakced to a more interesting topic than pics of useless weapons and comments of I got one too?


*ducks*
*giggles* [/B]
Click to expand...

Oh crap! Thanks for reminding me...

Look at how happy guns make people. :teeth

2399330-img_0782small.jpg
 
Ratters said:
That's the trick. It's very hard to find good public places to hunt pig as it is a very popular activity now. Best to find someone with private land. But that I can't help you with. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to go to a Ranch if it was a decent one that wasn't to much of a dude trap. It's expensive, but oh well. Thing is I'd really like a good referral...
 
What's interesting is that legislators and even the CA DOJ don't always appear to agree with that research study.
 
BMWBard said:
zefflyn said:
Regardless, even without any of the amendments, no where does the enumerated powers of the Consitution delegate to either Congress or the President, authority to regulate gun ownership.

But if you're actually interested in finding out more about the history & meaning of all that, check these out:

(In 2004 the DOJ completed a huge study on the Second amendment, called: )
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

(Scroll down to: The Original Meaning of the Second Amendment)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html



Zef all that shows is what someone paid someone to say. I can turn it upside down and sideways using whatever experts I like as well as anyone else with any training in logic, rhetoric, and debate...and please, no one really thinks that lawyers actually care about reality, or justice, or what is real or actually meant or any such concept, do they? Maybe once in awhile an individual lawyer does, probably one not long in the profession, but the profession is about trickery, twisting words, making things utterly impossible for anyone not a lawyer to understand, and so on...not about anything else. Read through the code of ethics some time, and take some time to clearly understand what it says. Preeeety scarey stuff.

Far better to be a. intelligent b. have a good grasp of the native tongue of the wording c. educated, and d. read it dispassionately without an agenda (such as I want my guns no matter what anyone says!!!).

For someone not a historian I probably have a fairly good grasp of the context (what I think you mean by history). I'm not a cultural anthro either but I';ve had a lot of practice explaining other modern and ancient cultures to people too. Context again...




What happened to the gun thread? I guess it got hijakced to a more interesting topic than pics of useless weapons and comments of I got one too?


*ducks*
*giggles*
Click to expand...



what is your point being here? to dump on guns, no one give a fuck what you think cuz you will not open your mind the the possibility that you might be all wrong. or your a flaming hoplophobe.

someone presented a educated thought out case, and you go off on some bs tangent about being logic. what logic are you smoking?

if you want to criticize, then YOU bring forth some valid sorces that argues your point.

if you expect anyone to listen to you then YOU "turn it upside down and sideways" then you might actually get some respect on your opinions.
Click to expand...
 
Webberstyle said:

A I don't see where you got "Militia" out of "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." :confused The main verb there is People, not Militia
Click to expand...

This is only the second half of a sentence. The word "militia" comes from reading the whole amendment.

Amendment II

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.
 
How do you spell relief?

Relief is when, after a house fire, having most of your belongings boxed up and moved out, and the rest of them hauled off by a toxic disposal company, and not being able to find the bag you put 2 P7M8 magazines, 3 full-capacity Glock magazines, 5 Beretta 21a mags, and 3 Tomcat mags in, not being able to find that bag while searching for days through all the boxes of stuff, finally having it turn up a month and a half after the fire.

That was a good $300 worth of magazines there, with 3 irreplaceable. :whew
 
whodat said:
This is only the second half of a sentence. The word "militia" comes from reading the whole amendment.

Amendment II

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.
Click to expand...

Besides Miran's confusion over parts of speech (he is a foreigner after all) I think he was trying to state that militia is not included in the operative part of the amendment, only in the justification part. In the operative part that states what rights are to be protected, it says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In every other right, as in this one, "people" refers to individual people, not agents of the government.

At least that is what I'm assuming he meant.

:D
 
zefflyn said:
How do you spell relief?

Relief is when, after a house fire, having most of your belongings boxed up and moved out, and the rest of them hauled off by a toxic disposal company, and not being able to find the bag you put 2 P7M8 magazines, 3 full-capacity Glock magazines, 5 Beretta 21a mags, and 3 Tomcat mags in, not being able to find that bag while searching for days through all the boxes of stuff, finally having it turn up a month and a half after the fire.

That was a good $300 worth of magazines there, with 3 irreplaceable. :whew
Click to expand...

:wow

Dude, you had a house fire?!?!?!
 
I just had a LONG conversation with a girl I know who's aspiring to be a police officer.

My point was that DPD is mostly a bunch of incompetent pricks who are lucky enough to work in a college town, so they can get away with their flagrant incompetence. As such, I felt I was entitled to a right to protect myself everywhere I went, seeing as how they're super-fast at responding to parties and writing speeding tickets, but DRAG ASS when there's a break-in or some shit.

Her point was essentially that boo hoo hoo cops have it real hard, and that regular citizens can't be trusted with weapons, because cops have these great background checks that make them stable and immune to mistakes :rolleyes

Then I was asked to provide an unbiased study that showed gun violence decreases with more CCW permits issued. :wtf Yeah, good luck either way. Universities are hippy cesspools that love to slant left, NRA-backed groups are conservative cesspools that love to slant right, etc.

*sigh*

I'm exhausted.
 
Webberstyle said:
I just had a LONG conversation with a girl I know who's aspiring to be a police officer.

My point was that DPD is mostly a bunch of incompetent pricks who are lucky enough to work in a college town, so they can get away with their flagrant incompetence. As such, I felt I was entitled to a right to protect myself everywhere I went, seeing as how they're super-fast at responding to parties and writing speeding tickets, but DRAG ASS when there's a break-in or some shit.

Her point was essentially that boo hoo hoo cops have it real hard, and that regular citizens can't be trusted with weapons, because cops have these great background checks that make them stable and immune to mistakes :rolleyes

Then I was asked to provide an unbiased study that showed gun violence decreases with more CCW permits issued. :wtf Yeah, good luck either way. Universities are hippy cesspools that love to slant left, NRA-backed groups are conservative cesspools that love to slant right, etc.

*sigh*

I'm exhausted.
Click to expand...

Shut up HIPPY:twofinger

With the background check comment. Ask her why suicide rate is so high for cops and why so many know how to BS the pysco test.
 
Webberstyle said:
Her point was essentially that boo hoo hoo cops have it real hard, and that regular citizens can't be trusted with weapons, because cops have these great background checks that make them stable and immune to mistakes :rolleyes
Click to expand...

Ask her: So, do you think everyone in the entire world who could possibly pass that great background check has done so? i.e. is everyone who could possibly qualify to be a law enforcement officer gone into law enforcement?
She'll have to either admit 'no' and admit that there are plenty of people out there (like her) who are trustworthy enough to be police officers but went into some other profession but can still be trusted to defend themselves and others, or claim 'yes' and then explain what'll happen when current LEOs retire with no one worthy to replace them.

Or, you can debate with her just what it is about the LEO profession that draws the types of characters that made it necessary to do background checks, psychological profiles, cross-examinations, etc, etc, to keep out punks, bad-asses, bullies, etc. Why do cops want to rule over people, and why should they be the only ones capable of enforcing their will at gunpoint?

Then ask her why every jurisdiction has an internal affairs office, if cops are so stable and immune to mistakes & corruption?

About the CCW, tell her 37 states have passed shall-issue statutes, meaning anyone who wants one can carry concealed. Except in Alaska and Vermont, where you don't even need a permit - anyone can carry concealed. In which state are the streets running with blood from all the shootouts between people who aren't as "worthy" as LEOs?

Or, do a google search on case law resulting from LEOs failing to protect, or deliberately not protecting a civilian, and how the civilian lost the suit, BECAUSE LEOS HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT ANYONE. It's still up to the individual to protect him/herself, and the cops just investigate after it's all done.
 
Executive summary: You can't have one without the other.

With great power comes great responsibility.

I interpret this as referring not only to those in 'upper management' positions, but those who also can elevate their 'power' quotient selectively. This would include automobile/motorcyle operators, firearms owners, and even crossing guards. I might even argue that power and responsibility go hand-in-hand.

I do feel that the majority of LEOs are in positions of great power on a daily, continual basis. Officers have more than a few tools available at their disposable to even raise their power quotient higher than normal. Patrol cars, uniforms, badges, utility belts with firearms, etc. all play a role in establishing their implied and explicit power. But, it's also the duty of the officer to display the restraint to utilize these tools only when necessary. It's because of this that I support the extensive hiring process of potential LE candidates. I also believe departments should their officers with as much effective training as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top