troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:49 pm
It's insane that you think there is any universe in which the language could possibly be interpreted by reasonable people to mean that untrained individuals should have guns. You're reading into it what you want to read and trying your best to ignore all evidence to the contrary by say "LOL OLD LANGUAGE IS WEIRD"
you are talking about a time when the average person could not read.
Therefore the words are meaningless and we can interpret them however we'd like?
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:05 pm
DFD. The forum where everybody makes the same choices and then tells anybody trying to join the club that they are the stupidest motherfucker to ever walk the earth.
Reasonable and sufficient restrictions, as in our handgun laws are perfect as they are? You're totally cool with any and all future handgun-related deaths? Why?
My *opinion* (this isn't a win or lose argument, just my opinion) is that hand guns are reasonable with what I interpret to be within the bounds of the intent of the second amendment.
I agree with this. I'm cool with you owning as many muzzle loading, single shot, black powder firearms as you want, just as soon as you join your local well-regulated militia, per the 2nd Amendment.
Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm
I don't understand anything anymore.
troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:02 pm
Therefore the words are meaningless and we can interpret them however we'd like?
Nice call, Yosemite Sam.
Just as the gun lobby encourages to be excluded from debates, this type of stereotype also needs to be removed from debates by the anti gun crowd to have a productive discussion.
Neither side wants to see kids dead in schools.
Bull shit. You said yourself that the deaths are acceptable so that you can have your freedumbs. You value your guns enough to let people die over them.
The income boom enjoyed by people born between 1966 and 1980 has turned to “bust” for the generation that followed them, according to a report published Monday.
In an analysis of eight high-income countries, the Resolution Foundation think tank found that millennials in their early 30s have household incomes 4 percent lower on average than members of so-called Generation X at the same age.
[user not found] wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:20 pm
My *opinion* (this isn't a win or lose argument, just my opinion) is that hand guns are reasonable with what I interpret to be within the bounds of the intent of the second amendment.
I agree with this. I'm cool with you owning as many muzzle loading, single shot, black powder firearms as you want, just as soon as you join your local well-regulated militia, per the 2nd Amendment.
Pretty much
A modern handgun could destroy any 18th century gun. Why should you all have such power again?
[user not found] wrote:
Just as the gun lobby encourages to be excluded from debates, this type of stereotype also needs to be removed from debates by the anti gun crowd to have a productive discussion.
Neither side wants to see kids dead in schools.
Bull shit. You said yourself that the deaths are acceptable so that you can have your freedumbs. You value your guns enough to let people die over them.
Troy, they already have a great state for you. Move to California.
Their guns laws and bullshit politics have done nothing to curb the violence. But yes, move there. Feel safe.
troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:13 pm
Bull shit. You said yourself that the deaths are acceptable so that you can have your freedumbs. You value your guns enough to let people die over them.
Handgun deaths. I said they are acceptable based on my opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted.
Things we don't do that we could within those bounds:
- Training that might go as far as onerous.
- Waiting periods.
- Magazine restrictions.
- potentially reload speed inhibitors
Want more than that? I think we need an amendment.
You'd be OK with not having anything that could fire (reload) faster or further or more accurately or with more force than an 18th century rifle?
I'd possibly be on board with that as a gun that could be legally obtained.
Among white New England men, about 60 percent of the population was literate between 1650 and 1670, a figure that rose to 85 percent between 1758 and 1762, and to 90 percent between 1787 and 1795. In cities such as Boston, the rate had come close to 100 percent by century’s end.
Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm
I don't understand anything anymore.
Among white New England men, about 60 percent of the population was literate between 1650 and 1670, a figure that rose to 85 percent between 1758 and 1762, and to 90 percent between 1787 and 1795. In cities such as Boston, the rate had come close to 100 percent by century’s end.
So we are not counting women and black people (aka slaves at the time)? I'm sure that would bring the average well under 50%
troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:24 pm
You'd be OK with not having anything that could fire (reload) faster or further or more accurately or with more force than an 18th century rifle?
I'd possibly be on board with that as a gun that could be legally obtained.
Are we talking pistols or rifles?
FWIW an 18th century rifle is generally speaking far more powerful and no less accurate than a modern weapon. A .62 bullet out of a Kentucky Rifle would leave a hole in you that there is generally no coming back from, even with modern medicine. They were nasty nasty guns.
We're talking Arms, because the amendment makes no distinctions. Doesn't matter if it's a Katana or a - an Arm is an Arm.
troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:24 pm
You'd be OK with not having anything that could fire (reload) faster or further or more accurately or with more force than an 18th century rifle?
I'd possibly be on board with that as a gun that could be legally obtained.
Are we talking pistols or rifles?
FWIW an 18th century rifle is generally speaking far more powerful and no less accurate than a modern weapon. A .62 bullet out of a Kentucky Rifle would leave a hole in you that there is generally no coming back from, even with modern medicine. They were nasty nasty guns.
And fired what, 3-6 rounds per minute as long as the powder was dry and the flint made it's spark.
Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm
I don't understand anything anymore.
[user not found] wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:27 pm
Are we talking pistols or rifles?
FWIW an 18th century rifle is generally speaking far more powerful and no less accurate than a modern weapon. A .62 bullet out of a Kentucky Rifle would leave a hole in you that there is generally no coming back from, even with modern medicine. They were nasty nasty guns.
And fired what, 3-6 rounds per minute as long as the powder was dry and the flint made it's spark.
So we are not counting women and black people (aka slaves at the time)? I'm sure that would bring the average well under 50%
You said the average person could not read. Slaves were not consid.... yeah, i can't finish typing that. Women actually did a fair amount of the teaching then, many times in the home. Many women were literate.
Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm
I don't understand anything anymore.
troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:24 pm
You'd be OK with not having anything that could fire (reload) faster or further or more accurately or with more force than an 18th century rifle?
I'd possibly be on board with that as a gun that could be legally obtained.
Are we talking pistols or rifles?
FWIW an 18th century rifle is generally speaking far more powerful and no less accurate than a modern weapon. A .62 bullet out of a Kentucky Rifle would leave a hole in you that there is generally no coming back from, even with modern medicine. They were nasty nasty guns.
I honestly cant read this thing with our visualizing it and laughing myself to tears. Also, anyone could own a canon back in the day.
troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:32 pm
We're talking Arms, because the amendment makes no distinctions. Doesn't matter if it's a Katana or a - an Arm is an Arm.
It absolutely matters if you aren't a literalist ad I'm not and since you tend to be politically similar to me in other ways I am sure you aren't either.
The standard for self defense had changed and therefore the standard for interpretation has changed. I see nothing intrinsically unconstitutional about semi-automatic firearms. I also think putting limits around that in light of what is a reasonable weapon for hunting and self defense is also reasonable.
I think that all laws need to be written/interpreted literally - and likely change more often as a result.
While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply.
In addition, the weapon was very delicate and a small break in the reservoir could make it inoperable. Finally, it was very different from any other weapon of the time and any soldier using it needed to be highly trained.
Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm
I don't understand anything anymore.
to be excluded from debates, this type of stereotype also needs to be removed from debates by the anti gun crowd to have a productive discussion.
again.
- an Arm is an Arm.
